Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has invited the British Representatives of the Bankers' Committee, which arrived at a settlement with the Mexican Government, to furnish him with a report of the proceedings; whether, in view of the interest displayed by hon. Members in this matter, he would cause such report to be printed;
(2) whether, with a view to regularising our relations with Mexico, he will now appoint a Minister Plenipotentiary to that country;
(3) whether he is aware that certain bonds of the Huerta Government of Mexico, known as the De Kay bonds, were not included, owing to their doubtful legality, in the settlement arrived at between the Mexican Government and the Committee of International Bankers; and whether it is the policy of the Foreign Office to insist upon the recognition of bonds, the validity of which has not been upheld by the Bankers' Committee, previous to according official recognition to Mexico?

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Govern-
ment still declines to enter into an agreement with the Mexican Government to set up a mixed Commission to examine and adjudicate upon claims made by British citizens, on the grounds that the Mexican Government will not consent to certain bonds issued by the Huerta Government being taken into consideration; whether he is aware that the legality of these bonds has always been disputed by successive Mexican Governments; and whether he will see that the satisfaction of just claims is not prejudiced by an insistence on claims which have been disputed by all Mexican Governments?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): With the hon. Members' permission, I will circulate the reply to these four questions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The claims agreement which was pro posed by His Majesty's Government to the Mexican Government was, in substance, identical with similar agreements, under which satisfactory settlements of claims by and against other foreign countries have been secured. It applied equally to claims by British nationals against the Mexican Government, and by Mexican nationals against His Majesty's Government. The negotiations broke down at the end of 1922 because the Mexican Government demanded recognition before any Commission was set up, and insisted on the exclusion of certain categories of claims from the purview of the Commission. Among these categories were claims arising out of expropriations carried out under the Mexican agrarian laws, and also those of the British holders of certain issues of bonds, including the Mexican National Packing Company, or De Kay bonds, which the Mexican Government did not recognise. His Majesty's Government cannot accept the repudiation of these issues, but consider that the liability, or otherwise, of the Mexican Government is a question which should be submitted, in the same way as other claims, to the proposed Commission, the whole object of which is to obtain an impartial decision about claims which are not recognised by one or other of the Governments concerned. The responsibility for the breakdown of the negotiations on this ground, therefore, as on the
other grounds which I have mentioned, rests wholly with the Mexican Government.

The agreement concluded last year between the Mexican Government and and the International Bankers' Committee has been published, and copies have also been communicated to the Foreign Office. The Committee was a purely private organisation for which His Majesty's Government have never accepted any responsibility. It is, therefore, not proposed to print their report officially. The appointment of a Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico would imply recognition of the present Mexican Government, which His Majesty's Govern-are at present unable to grant.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (LAW AND ORDER).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of martial law in Egypt, the Government will entrust to an Egyptian Government the task of maintaining law and order; and whether, in order that a government may be established in Egypt which has the confidence of the Egyptian people, it will release Zaghloul Pasha?

Mr. McNEILL: When an Egyptian Ministry has undertaken the task of government and has shown its ability to maintain law and order, the Noble Lord's suggestion may be considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What steps are being taken to give the Egyptian Government an opportunity of showing that it can keep law and order?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Member had been in the House recently he would have heard a number of explanations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any penalty for using a passport out of date, or whether it is open to any British subject living abroad to return to England with an out-of-date passport; and whether, seeing that, as it is possible for any British
subject to leave England at the present time without a passport or with an old passport, the rules for renewal have practically been abrogated, the Government will immediately arrange for a public statement that these rules are no longer in force?

Mr. McNEILL: The possession of a passport is not necessary for leaving the United Kingdom, but British subjects proceeding abroad require valid passports in order to conform to the. Regulations of the countries they desire to visit. Failure to comply with these Regulations may involve great personal inconvenience and the probability of being refused admission. As regards the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom a passport is not compulsory, although, as has been frequently staled, the possession of a valid passport is a great convenience, as it enables the holder to secure admission without delay. Under existing Regulations which are based on the recommendations of the Paris Conference of 1920, British passports are available for two years only. They may be renewed for four further periods of two years. The hon. Member will be aware from my reply to his question on the 5th instant that the question of extending the period of validity of British passports is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH SEA CONVENTION (TRAWLING).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the territorial limits claimed, respectively, by the various Powers' signatories to the. North Sea Convention of 1882, and within which trawling by vessels belonging to other nationalities is prohibited?

Mr. McNEILL: All the signatories of the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 6th May, 1882, claim a three-mile limit of territorial waters for fishery purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

HUNGARIAN REPARATION.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Reparations Commission has yet apportioned the general liability in respect of the secured pre-War
debt of the former kingdom of Hungary in accordance with the provisions of Article 186 of the Treaty of Trianon; and, if so, will he request the Reparations Commission to fix without further delay the date upon which the liability is to be assumed by the successor States of Hungary, seeing that the question of date has now been standing open for a year and a half?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Reparation Commission have now decided that the date from which the liability is to be assumed by the successor States is the 1st July, 1919.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Note of the French Foreign Office on 8th March, according to which the German ambassador at Paris, at the time of the Paris Conference, on 2nd January, declared that he had received instructions to inform M. Poincaré in an official manner that his Government had drawn up a plan to settle the reparation question, and had obtained assurances of the help of the representatives of German industry and finance for the carrying out of the programme thus elaborated, and that the German Government asked to be allowed to submit this plan to the meeting of the Allied Ministers; and why this plan was not considered by the Paris Conference and has never been considered by His Majesty's Government?

PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am not clear to what Note of the French Foreign Office the hon. Member is referring, but the British Government have published full particulars of the Paris Conference, and., as regards this statement of the German Ambassador at Paris and the action of the Conference thereon, I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 1812, page 68.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of formally inviting the German Government to explain this offer which was not explained, together with such conditions as may he laid down for the offer being re-made?

The PRIME MINISTER: For the reasons I have already given, I do not think there would be any advantage in taking such a step at present.

Captain W. BENN: Was the offer that. Herr Bergmann brought to Paris ever laid before the British representatives in Paris?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, never.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH CITIZEN'S ARREST (J. MARTIN).

Mr. TILLETT: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that over six months have elapsed since the British agent at Moscow was instructed to demand of the Russian Government an explanation of their conduct in imprisoning from the 7th November, 1919, to 6th March, 1920, the British citizen, Mr. Joseph Martin, now blind as a result of his imprisonment, he can say what measures the Government is prepared to-take to secure the explanation without further delay?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have not relaxed their efforts to obtain the desired explanation, but have so far been unsuccessful. Beyond continuing these efforts on the lines hitherto-pursued, His Majesty's Government do not see what other measures they could usefully adopt.

TRADE REPRESENTATIVES IN ENGLAND.

Mr. C. BUXTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement of M. Latvinoff that His Majesty's Government are now refusing to admit to this country Russian buyers and sellers, representative of economic organisations, unless voucher? for by particular English firms, thereby committing them in advance to dealing with these particular firms; and what is the reason for this restriction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers. No such restriction as is suggested is imposed on the admission of bonâ fide Russian buyers
and sellers who desire to visit this country under the terms of the Trade Agreement with Russia.

GERMAN OFFICERS.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any evidence that German officers are rendering assistance in the development of the Russian army based on a Russo-German understanding with regard to an anti-French policy; and whether, in the new circumstances, he contemplates any change in the British policy towards Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: Although it is known that a few German individuals are employed in military institutions in Russia, His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that their employment is based on any such Russo-German understanding. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Russian official authorities have denied the existence of any military collaboration with Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and I think the German Government have denied it also.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH TRAVELLERS.

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British subjects are allowed to enter and travel in the Ruhr district now occupied by the French whether the ordinary German visa or British passport is sufficient for entry into this district or whether in addition any French visa or permission is required; and, as part of the district includes many places in the Rhino district visited by British travellers, can he make any statement on the subject?

Mr. McNE1LL: No foreign visa but a special endorsement granted by the British Passport Office or a British consular officer abroad is required on a British passport to permit the holder to enter occupied German territory. So far as I am aware, the French authorities have not imposed any conditions on the entry or movement of British subjects in
the districts recently occupied by them. On account of the disorganisation of the railway services in the occupied areas and the consequent delays and discomforts to which travellers have been subjected, it has been decided, on the advice of His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin and the High Commissioner at Coblenz, that permission for British subjects to proceed to the occupied territory should under existing circumstances only be granted for important business or for reasons of exceptional urgency.

BRITISH NAVAL FORCES.

Mr. GILBERT: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any British naval forces are employed on the Rhine in the British area of occupation; if so, will he state how many and what craft are used; and can he state what naval forces and craft are employed on the Rhine by the French and Belgian Governments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Mon-sell): Five British motor launches are employed on the Rhine in the British area of occupation. France is employing 5 river gunboats, 2 submarine chasers and 9 Vedette boats, and Belgium 15 motor launches, 2 steam launches and 9 small tugs.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. MUIR: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the numbers affected by the gap in unemployment benefit in the month of February, 1923, of the following: Married men, married women, single women, single men, boys and girls, respectively, between 16 and 18 years of age, and boys and girls, respectively, between 18 and 21 years of age; and will he arrange to have a monthly statement issued showing the figures for each category in each week of the month?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the numbers of men, women, boys and girls respectively, who had exhausted benefit up to 26th February. Similar figures will be available week by week, but a sub-
division of the figures into the categories mentioned in the question could not be made without what I fear would be excessive labour.

Mr. MUIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is already done in at least one of the Exchanges of Scotland, for the benefit of the manager of the Exchange? Could it not be extended?

Sir M. BARLOW: It is, of course, possible to do it in one particular Exchange, but, obviously, when you apply it all over England the work that is entailed is very much increased.

Mr. MUIR: In the information to be circulated, will the right hon. Gentleman give us the numbers affected by the gap? He is giving the information as to exhausted benefit.

Sir M. BARLOW: The figures are lengthy, and I am circulating them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MUIR: In his reply, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is circulating the figures relating to those who have exhausted benefit. The figures I want are as to those who are affected by the gap.

Sir M. BARLOW: There is no reference actually to the gap in the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question asks for information as to the number affected by the gap.

Sir M. BARLOW: I am circulating information as to the number affected by the gap, thought it was a rather different point that was put by the hon. Member.

Following 'is the statement referred to:

At 26th February, the numbers who had exhausted the maximum benefit permissible under the existing Acts:


Men
25,081


Women
2,343


Boys (aged 16 to 18)
282


Girls (aged 16 to 18)
132

In addition, the following numbers had been refused further benefit by the local employment committees before reaching the maximum:


Men
9,795


Women
3,800


Boys (aged 16 to 18)
1,177


Girls (aged 16 to 18)
716

CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFIT (CERTIFIED COPIES).

Mr. HILL: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that persons who are called upon to contribute to the Unemployment Insurance have no direct and written evidence as to the amount standing to their credit; and will he make arrangements for this to be done on lines similar to that which is done in connection with Health Insurance, namely, by each contributor having in his or her possession a record card?

Sir M. BARLOW: Under the Unemployment Insurance scheme provision is already made for any insured contributor to be supplied on demand with a certified copy of his contributions and benefit. This provision is widely known and utilised, and I doubt whether any commensurate advantage would be gained by placing on the unemployment fund the expense of issuing such notification in all cases.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of trade and labour councils are extremely anxious about this point, because they have had a lot of complaints made to them?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware that on occasion complaint has been made, but I think that if the procedure I indicate is adopted, there is no substantial ground for the complaints suggested.

ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether instructions have been issued by his Department that unemployed persons who are allotment holders, and who work their allotments during the day, are to be deprived of unemployment pay; and, if so, for what reason have such instructions been issued?.

Sir M. BARLOW: As stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Stratford on the 7th March last, I am not aware-of any cases of the kind referred to, but I will make inquiry if particulars can be furnished.

JUTE INDUSTRY DISPUTE (DUNDEE).

Mr. HARDIE: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a strike amongst women jute workers in Dundee due to the introduction of an
improvement in machinery which is to displace one in every three workers concerned, thus adding to the unemployed; and whether such persons will be eligible for the unemployment benefit?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware of the dispute. Claims to benefit made by the spinners concerned have been disallowed by the Insurance Officer on the ground of the trade dispute disqualification laid down in Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. It is open to the claimants to appeal to the Court of Referees if they wish to do so. Claims to benefit made by other classes of workers affected are still under consideration.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that we have a contribution towards relieving unemployment, decided on after discussion in this House; and can he state what are we prepared to do in a case like that to which I have drawn attention, a case which is not due to any economic conditions but simply to an improvement in machinery? Since we do not apply intelligence to production, how can we expect anything else, but that improvements in machinery will produce un-employment.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Major EDMONDSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will institute an inquiry into the conditions affecting domestic service, in order that the objections raised by those who would be available for such service and the difficulties of those who are unable to obtain such service may be investigated, with a view to bringing about an adjustment that would be beneficial to all concerned?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been considering action on the lines indicated by the hon. Member, and I hope to be able to make a, statement on the subject at an early date.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has this not already been done by the women's committee on unemployment?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite certain to what committee the Noble Lady refers.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Central Committee.

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not think so. The work of the Central Employment Committee is for the purpose of training, not for the purpose of holding inquiries of this kind.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.

Major EDMONDSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the Government Bill granting improved treatment for normally insured workers now unemployed, he can state what special steps are being taken to assist agricultural labourers who are in extreme destitution?

Sir M. BARLOW: Agricultural labourers cannot, of course, be assisted out of the Unemployment Fund, to which they are not contributors. I may mention, however, that special steps have been taken to promote relief schemes in rural areas by means of grants from the Ministry of Agriculture for land drainage and water supply schemes, from the Forestry Commission for schemes of afforestation, and from the Unemployment Grants Committee for improvements in unclassified roads.

Mr. MARCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the question of including agricultural labourers in the Insurance Bill?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have received no requests from the agricultural labourers themselves, or from the agricultural interests, that they should be so included.

GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the fact that the numbers of unemployed in Glasgow have increased during the past year, while the number of men employed on relief work has decreased, and that no work has been provided for women; will he say what steps he has taken to carry out his promise to the deputation on unemployment which met him on December last in Glasgow; and will he state when the schemes then promised will be started?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of Labour on the 8th March to a question by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). As the
hon. Member is aware, relief works do not provide suitable employment for women, although of course in many cases they benefit indirectly by the schemes guaranteed by the Trade Facilities Committee.
With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Muir) on the 5th March.
With regard to the last part of the question, it is not possible to say exactly when schemes will be started as that must depend upon the completion of surveys and upon the local authorities concerned. I may add, however, that the plans and schemes for the Glasgow-Duntocher-Bowling road have been completed and tenders for the construction works are being invited shortly.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).

Mr. TILLETT: 75.
asked the Minister of Health why the loans to boards of guardians to enable the payment of outdoor relief to unemployed persons are limited to big industrial areas; whether he is aware that, as a result, in some districts unemployed who have fallen into the gap are practically starving; and will he cause an immediate inquiry to be made into the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: While it is usually in large industrial areas that expenditure on the relief of unemployed persons has been so large as to render it necessary that part of the charge should be met by borrowing, it is not the case that other boards of guardians are refused authority to borrow moneys for this purpose. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case which he has in mind I shall be glad to inquire into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS (POPLAR).

Mr. MARCH: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Messrs. Green, Silley, and Weir, and Messrs. Fletcher, Son, and Fearnall, of Poplar, are on the Government's list of contractors doing ships' repairs and engineering work; and whether either of these firms have recently done any work for the Government or are now doing any work; for the Government?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Both firms are noted in the list of firms eligible to carry out ship-repair work for the Admiralty. The Admiralty have not had occasion to utilise their services for some time past, except that a small order has recently been carried out by Messrs. Fletcher, Son, and Fearnall.

CLASPS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the grant of the clasps for the Royal Navy sanctioned by His Majesty in 1920 are still delayed; can he say if such delay is due to waiting for the Army or to expense; if the latter, if the delay would be obviated if officers and men paid for such clasps; and if he can give the approximate cost of such clasps?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir P. RICHARDSON: 23.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is yet settled what clasps are to be issued for Naval service during the War; and, if so, when are they to be issued?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The conditions governing the award of Naval clasps are laid down in Admiralty Fleet Order 2051 of 1920, but all action as to their free issue has been suspended owing to the urgent necessity for economy. The sale of clasps is considered undesirable. The total cost, including the issuing of Naval clasps is estimated at £120,000.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it a fact that the delay is due to the junior Service standing in the way, the cost to the junior Service being £1,500,000?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Of course there is always a prime necessity for the two Services working together in the matter

Sir B. FALLE: Is it not a fact that His Majesty has approved of the Naval clasps, and that the Army clasps are not as yet being considered? Is the Navy to wait until the Army demand is accepted?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am not aware that that is the case.

ARTIFICER-APPRENTICES.

Sir B. FALLE: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the artificer-apprentices who are now being discharged and who are to be taken on in the Royal Air Force will be allowed to engage for long
service; will they be fully-fledged tradesmen after serving in the Royal Air Force and will the Admiralty take them back as engine-room artificers in the event of there being vacancies?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: These artificer-apprentices will be transferred to the Royal Air Force to serve the un-expired part of their 12 years' engagement in the Navy. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part of the question these men will transfer to the Royal Air Force for the purpose of serving in that Force, and the question of re-entry in the Royal Navy will not arise.

Sir B. FALLE: Does my hon. and gallant Friend mean that all these apprentices will be accepted into the Air Force?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: I hope so, but I am not in a position to give quite a definite answer.

COMMISSIONED WARDMASTERS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will now consider the appointment of commissioned ward-masters as secretaries to the surgeon rear-admirals at Plymouth and Portsmouth, respectively, in view of the fact that this would mean economy and would facilitate promotion from the sick-berth staff to warrant rank?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I will look into the question raised and let my Noble Friend know the result, but I may say at once that the new arrangements suggested would be considerably more expensive than the arrangements now in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

KING'S ROLL.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider, in conjunction with the King's Roll National Council, the advisability of publishing a list of all those local authorities employing a staff of inure than 20 persons who are not on the King's Roll.

Sir M. BARLOW: I have arranged to place this suggestion before the King's
Roll National Council at their next meeting.

Mr. J. DAVISON: What effect has the question of the King's Roll had upon employment by local authorities throughout the United Kingdom?

Sir M. BARLOW: I think it is probably rather too early to say what the effects have been.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we to understand that if the Council of the King's Roll desire that these names should be published, the Minister will immediately take steps to publish them?

Sir M. BARLOW: I will see the reply from the Council first.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, KEW.

Mr. BECKER: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, owing to the acute state of unrest which exists at Kew amongst ex-service civil servants, he can give the House any further information as to the inquiries which he has made, and thus avert further trouble; and if he is satisfied that all temporary women still retained are genuine hardship cases.

Sir M. BARLOW: The discharges— both of men and women—which have been effected at the Kew office have been made because of a falling off in the volume of work to be done. In making the discharges, the possibility of retaining as many ex-service men as possible has been kept in mind, and arrangements have been made for all the temporary clerical work to be performed by ex-service men and not by women. No temporary women are retained except those engaged on routine and semi-manipulative work which, in accordance with the Lytton Report and the practice throughout the Government Service and in business houses, is more appropriately performed by women. A searching examination was made some time ago into the family circumstances of every temporary woman employed at Kew, and I am satisfied that all the women now retained were at that date entirely dependent on their earnings, and in many cases had others dependent on them. I have, however, arranged for a further investigation of a similar nature to be made immediately, and if it can be shown
that any of the women now retained are not entirely dependent on their earnings at Kew, their services will be dispensed with. The Joint Substitution Board has full particulars of all the ex-service men who have been discharged from Kew, and will make every possible effort to find them posts in other Government Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CONDEMNED HOUSES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Health how many towns have reported surveys made of houses not reasonably fit for human habitation; how many houses have been so condemned by medical officers of health and local authorities; and the total population covered by these reports?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. N. Chamberlain): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Reports received from medical officers of health for 1,060 boroughs and urban districts for the year 1921 show that, 994,005 houses were inspected under the Public Health Acts and Housing (Inspection of Districts) Regulations. 13,279 houses were reported as unfit for habitation and 226,713 as not in all respects reasonably fit.

Notices under Section 28 of the Housing Act, 1919, were served in respect of 30,818 houses, and of these 23,453 were rendered fit by the owners and 912 by the local authorities.

Notices were served under the Public Health Acts in respect of 266,549 houses; in 240,310 of the houses concerned the defects were remedied by the owners and in 2,757 houses by the local authorities.

Defects were remedied in 223,546 houses without the service of formal notices.

Closing orders were made in respect of 1,416 houses, while in the case of 287 houses closing orders were determined after the houses had been made fit.

There is no information regarding the population inhabiting these houses.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. THOMSON: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the demands made upon the building operatives for a reduction of wages in order to reduce the cost of houses, he will state what is being done by his Department to secure a corresponding reduction in the cost of building materials by breaking up the rings and trusts which are artificially inflating prices to the great detriment of the public?

Mr. THOMAS HENDERSON: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the urgent necessity of a large number of houses being built in the near future at a reasonable cost, he will state what steps he proposes to take to prevent, the rise in price of building material through the operations of rings, trusts, and combines?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): The Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade are fully alive to the question raised by the hon. Members. The situation is being carefully watched and the question of what steps can be usefully taken is now under consideration.

Mr. THOMSON: is the Noble Lord aware that a similar reply has been given in this House every time a question on this subject has been put for the last 18 months. Cannot the Noble Lord, who is fresh to office, expedite action in this matter?

Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad to know our predecessors also appear to have carefully watched the situation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If that is the only satisfaction Parliament is going to get, will the Noble Lord—still strictly in accordance, with the line followed by his predecessors—institute an inquiry after the exploitation has been going on for a year or two?

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member is aware there have already been a number of inquiries. I can assure him the Government do not propose to sit idle on this question, but it would be exceedingly ill-advised to do anything without careful consideration first.

Mr A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that the present President of the
Board of Trade told the House in March, 1921, on the Board of Trade Vote, that the Government would introduce legislation?

Viscount WOLMER: That Government came to an end.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Board of Trade any knowledge of any shortage of any class of building materials for houses?

Viscount WOLMER: I cannot answer that question without notice.

SHORTAGE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health the latest figures available, showing the balance of houses still required to make good the shortage reported by local authorities in 1919, as the result of the official survey of their requirements made under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919; and how soon he anticipates this shortage will be met?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The difference between the number of State-assisted houses completed up to the 1st February last and the gross estimate of shortage due to overcrowding, according to the survey referred to, is 312,505. Information is not available as to the number of unsubsidised houses built since 1919. In view of the difficulty of obtaining reliable estimates the hon. Member must not take it that I regard this as representing the present effective demand for houses. With regard to the last part of the question, I regret that I cannot at present express any opinion upon the subject.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea as to how soon he will enable the local authorities to start building houses, by the introduction of the Bill promised for so long?

Mr. J. DAVISON: Upon what basis does the right hon. Gentleman form his estimate that there will be 312,000 houses short, because before the War we were building houses at the rate of 80,000 per year, and there has been a shortage now, for eight years?

LAND (TRANSFER FEES).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will, in
connection with his housing scheme, consider the desirability of recommending to the Government the cheapening of transfer fees in respect to land?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will give the matter careful consideration, and if my hon. Friend has a concrete suggestion to make I shall be glad if he will send me a note of it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the transfer of a house value £400 costs about £15, including £5 for registration and £2 10s. Stamp Duty, whereas on the Stock Exchange you can transfer £400 worth of stock for £2.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will give me any suggestions he has to make, I will consider them.

STATE-AIDED HOUSES (AVERAGE AGE).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the estimated anticipated average age of the houses built under the subsidy scheme of the late Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the practice of my Department to allow a period not exceeding 60 years for the repayment of loans by local authorities for the erection of houses under the Housing Acts by ordinary methods of construction, and it may be taken that this period represents a conservative estimate of the life of the houses.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: What is the estimated loss on each house?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not seem to arise out of the question.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister aware that under the Rutherglen housing scheme a term of 60 years is given, and the average payment of interest on that becomes £60 per year? How does the Minister think working people can pay the interest, apart altogether from the rent?

Sir B. FALLE: If these houses do not last 60 years, who will be responsible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a hypothetical question.

EMPTY HOUSES.

Mr. BRIANT: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to
the number of empty houses in the United Kingdom which are to be sold arid which are not available as ordinary tenancies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Statistics on this point are not available, and I am afraid that they could not readily be obtained.

Mr. BRIANT: Is it not possible to obtain these particulars from the local authorities, as they have a very important bearing on the housing problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman make application to the local authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider that, but I am afraid it will be difficult for the local authorities themselves.

Mr. MARCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council said recently that there are 3,800 empty houses in London?

Mr. BRIANT: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if he will include in the forthcoming Housing Bill a provision for the rating of empty houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: When the right hon. Gentleman does make a statement, or when he does consider the question, will he also consider the advisability of taxing as well as rating land values?

UNOCCPIED WORKHOUSES.

Mr. BECKER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if, as only 204,000 persons are being relieved by the Poor Law authorities in workhouses whereas there is accommodation for 282,000 persons, he will consider the possibility of converting the unoccupied portions of the workhouses into workmen's flats and thereby relieve the rates to the amount of the rents received?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would seldom be practicable or economical to convert temporarily unoccupied portions of workhouses into dwellings, but I am quite ready to consider any proposal that may be made for this purpose.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A large number of dwelling houses are occupied by the rich, or rather only partly occupied; would the
right hon. Gentleman consider turning them into houses for working people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question; this reference is to workhouses.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Mr. BROAD: 53.
asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a return giving the names of local authorities who have undertaken building under the Housing Acts, the number of houses erected by each, the various rents at present charged for the several types of houses, and the rents charged when the houses were first let?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The preparation of such a return would involve considerable time and labour and it is not considered that ifs value would be sufficient to justify the cost of preparation and publication. A return showing the rents agreed with local authorities for each type of horse in the assisted housing schemes of those authorities was given on the 21st ultimo in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West.

COLLIERY COMPANIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the Minister of Health how many colliery companies received a subsidy under the Housing Act, 1919: how many houses were erected for which subsidy was received by colliery companies: and can he state how many mine workers have been turned out of these subsidised houses because they, went to work at some colliery other than the one which owned the houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no information in my Department which would enable a reply to be given to the hon. Member's question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the more unscrupulous kind of colliery officials can inflict intolerable conditions upon the workmen residing in colliery houses, and will he refuse any further applications for subsidies to colliery companies unless he gets a guarantee that evictions shall not take place?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information to that effect. If the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

DWELLING-HOUSES (FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS).

Mr. GOSLING: 69.
asked the. Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the Stepney Borough Council urging the Government to introduce legislation granting to local authorities, including Metropolitan boroughs, powers similar to those contained in Section 6 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, to prevent the user of dwelling-houses as factories or workshops; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received the communication referred to and the suggestion is receiving my careful consideration, but I am not yet able to make a statement.

SUBSIDISED HOUSES.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether all the houses built under the subsidy scheme of the late Government have now been completed and, if completed, are occupied; and whether any steps are taken or can be usefully taken to ensure that untenanted houses are not kept vacant for sale only?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is assumed that the hon. Member refers to the State-assisted houses erected by local authorities and public utility societies. On 1st March, 157,235 houses had been completed, and I think it may be taken generally that there is no delay in the occupation of these houses. As regards houses built under the private builders' subsidy scheme, information as to the occupation of the houses is not available, but I may point out that this scheme was limited to houses completed so long ago as last June. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no information which would lead me to suppose that any action by my Department is required.

Sir W. de FRECE: Will the Government provide in the new Bill that no subsidies shall be given for houses built for sale, and not to be let?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider that point.

LEONARDS PLACE, KENSINGTON.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention
has been called to the fact that the London Couny Council, notwithstanding the opposition of the Kensington Borough Council and of the residents in the locality, have recently granted a licence for the erection of a super-cinema in Leonards Place, Kensington, which will involve the destruction of a considerable number of middle-class houses; and whether he will make representations to the London County Council and other local licensing authorities that, during the existing serious shortage in houses, it is undesirable for them to grant licences for the erection of cinemas or other places of amusement which will involve the destruction of residential property?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries, and find that the facts are as stated. I have no power to intervene in a case such as this, but the tenants will have the protection afforded by the Rent Restrictions Acts. The suggestion in the latter part of the question will receive my careful consideration.

Sir W. DAVISON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider in connection with the forthcoming Bill whether it would not be well to take temporary powers to prevent the destruction of private houses during the existing shortage in order to build cinemas and theatres?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider that.

Sir W. DAVISON: Thank you.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (REPORTS).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 83.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities for the purposes of Part II of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, have failed to furnish reports, as required by Section 44 of that Act, for 1921 and 1922 respectively; what is the form required by the Ministry of Health under that section; and what particulars are required to be furnished by the local authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Return referred to was discontinued for the period of the War by Sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, and the provisions of this Sub-section were further extended by the Expiring Laws Act, 1922, to 31st December next. Medical officers of health have, however, been
required to include in the annual reports a statement as to action taken by their authorities in relation to unsatisfactory houses, and a summary of these reports is given in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what action he proposes to take against the local authorities who have failed to furnish these reports?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have hardly had time yet to look into this question, but I will see about it.

WATER SUPPLY (BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 40.
asked the Minister of Health Whether his attention has been called to the draft model bylaws and Regulations which have been submitted by the British Waterworks Association for approval by the Ministry of Health; whether he is aware that in the specification attached to the proposed Regulations many onerous conditions would be imposed, involving increased outlay on the part of the public; whether he has received a deputation from the owners of artisan dwellings in the County of London praying that the sanction of the Ministry of Health may be withheld until a public inquiry has taken place; whether the Ministry intend to hold a public inquiry as suggested; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proposals of the Association are under consideration. Various written representations against the proposals have been received, but no deputation. I doubt whether a public inquiry would be of advantage, but I can assure my hon. Friend that any representations made by interested parties will be carefully considered.

SHOP TENANTS.

Mr. W. ROBINSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to Protect small business people who occupy shops to which there is no home attached?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not intended to deal with this subject at the present time.

MINERS' WAGES.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that miners' wages are so much below the cost of living as compared with the year 1914, he will consider the amendment of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, so that the cost of living will be considered in relation to the fixing of wages?

The PRIME MINISTER: The wages of coal miners are governed by an agreement with the coal owners which contains provision for minimum "subsistence" wages being fixed in each district. I cannot regard as practicable any scheme for fixing wages in relation to the cost of living regardless of the general state of trade. Coal miners, I regret to say, are not peculiar in being financially worse off than before the War.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Are we to understand from that answer that the miners have no hope of legislation by this Government, and that they must rely entirely on industrial action?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present hold out any hope of legislation on the subject.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minimum Wage Act, 1912, would ordinarily have come to an end in 1915, and that this question does not arise out of the agreement between the two parties, but under the Minimum Wage Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: But since then an agreement has been made between the two parties, which, I think, largely supersedes it.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the agreement is an entirely different thing from the Minimum Wage Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am aware of that.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Brigadier - General COCKERILL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state when a Cabinet decision will be taken with reference to Grants-in-Aid to the Crown Colonies; whether the present Trade Facilities Act
will permit of loans to Dominion Governments for purchases made in this country; and, if so, at what rate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly. It is open to any Dominion and Colonial Government to ask for a guarantee under the existing Trade Facilities Act.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is it contemplated that new legislation will be necessary to effect loans to the Overseas Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I rather think so.

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE (MEETINGS).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence have been held during the past year; and how does this number compare with previous years?

The PRIME MINISTER: From March, 1922, until the present date the Committee of Imperial Defence, including the Standing Defence Sub-Committee has held 15 meetings, and there have been 115 meetings of its Sub-committees, making a total of 130. These figures compare with 8 meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence and 117 of its Sub-committees for the same period in 1912–13. In addition, there have been 133 meetings of Cabinet Committees dealing with defence questions, the secretarial service of which have been supplied by the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The total number of meetings, therefore, is 263.

STATE ASSURANCE.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Queens-land Government by instituting State Assurance has reduced rates 33 per cent., saving the insured .£350,000 in five years and building up a. surplus of £70,000; if the Government Assurance Office doubled the weekly rates of compensation for accidents and also the compensation paid for deaths; and if, in view of this, the Government will consider the advisability of introducing State Assurance in this country instead of proceeding with the Industrial Assurance Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: A State scheme of life insurance is already in operation in this country under the direction of the Post Office, premiums being payable weekly if desired, and the Health Insurance Scheme provides a small measure of accident insurance under State auspices. I am not prepared to extend these facilities, and I think it would be very undesirable not to proceed with the Industrial Assurance Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

DEPORTATIONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he will place upon the Table of the House immediately a full Report of written as well as verbal communications that passed between the Irish Free State authorities and the Prime Minister or other members of the British Cabinet which caused the Home Secretary to issue orders for the arrest and deportation of numerous citizens to be tried by ordinary and extraordinary Courts in the Irish Free State?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I can add nothing to the statements made by the Attorney-General and myself on Monday last. As I explained then, nothing more than internment is proposed at the present time.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is it within the constitutional power of the Government of this country to prevent the Irish Free State from taking any measures against persons who are now deported and interned there?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to see that question on the Paper before I answer it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any persons were wrongly arrested in connection with these deportations?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that arises out of this question, but I have no information that anybody was wrongly arrested.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Have the Government received any assurances from the Free State as to what is to be
done with these men who have now passed without the jurisdiction of the British Government?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already stated that they have been interned.

Mr. PRINGLE: When is the Advisory Committee which is to deal with the cases of these men to be set up?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope in a very short time.

Mr. MAXTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that James Hickey, Gallowgate, Glasgow, one of the men deported to Ireland on the night of Saturday, 10th March, is a native of Glasgow, the son of a Glasgow policeman, and that a prominent local clergyman is prepared to testify to his complete innocence of any connection with Irish rebel organisations, and if in view of these facts he will take immediate steps to restore this man to his home.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): Each of the persons interned was made aware, by the terms of the Internment Order, a copy of Which was served on him, that it is open to him to submit representations against the Order. Any such representations will be referred to the Advisory Committee to be presided over by Lord Trevethin. Representations from any other persons who may have personal knowledge of a particular case will also be considered.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand that the onus for putting right an illegal act on the part of the Government rests on the victim and not on us?

Captain ELLIOT: Obviously I cannot accept the assumption that this act was illegal on the part of the Government. It was agreed by all sections of the House in the Debate on the question that it was perfectly legal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, Sir."] The fact that the onus of proof lies on the person involved is contained in the Regulations which were sanctioned by this House, and they cannot be reviewed by any party.

Mr. MAXTON: Have I the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that proper facilities will be given .to these men to make their claims for consideration and
that the claims will be considered at once? I ask this because I have been in prison and know how difficult it is for an imprisoned man to make any representation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the next-question deals with that very point.

Sir JOHN SIMON: We have been told that this Committee will sit in Britain. Will these interned men be brought back from Ireland to Britain in order that they may be present at the inquiry, or will it be held in their absence?

Captain ELLIOT: As far as I am informed, their representations will he submitted to the Committee, and if the Committee desires further information on the subject it will have the right to examine the accused person. It is within their competence.

Sir J. SIMON: Does not the hon. Gentleman see I am not asking as to the rights of the Committee? I am asking what is the right of the individual. Is it his right, if he wishes to appear before the Committee which is to decide his fate?

Mr. SPEAKER: The next question will raise that point better, because it is in more general terms. This question applies to one individual case.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House what arrangements, if any, have been made, either by His Majesty's Government or the Free State Government, to give the persons deported from this country to Ireland, there to be interned, an opportunity of communicating with their friends in order that legal advice may be provided for those of the prisoners who desire it; and further, will the British Government take steps to ensure that the legal advisers of the deportees proceeding to Ireland from England shall be allowed freedom of access to them for the purpose of advising as to an appeal to the Advisory Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Free State Government will see that every reasonable opportunity is afforded to these persons to communicate with their friends in order to procure legal advice as to any representations they may wish to make to
the Advisory Committee, and their legal advisers will be allowed freedom of access to them for this purpose.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Who is going to judge as to the exact significance of the word "reasonable"?

Sir J. SIMON: May I ask the Home Secretary the question which I put to the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaking for Scotland, namely, will these men have the right to appear before the Advisory Committee, which I think the Home Secretary told us would be constituted and set up in Britain, or is their fate to be decided in their absence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite certain about the right, but my impression is this, that they will make their representations, if they wish to do so, to the Advisory Committee, and it will then rest with the Advisory Committee as to whether they think that these persons should be brought over here. [Interruption.]

Mr. WEBB: In the previous cases in which action was taken under this or a similar Order under the Defence of the Realm Act in the last few years, had not the accused the right given to them to appear before the Advisory Committee if they chose, and is it not the fact that they did appear?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to investigate that before I give a reply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this Committee sit in public when these men appear before it, or in private?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I imagine in private.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish prisoners who were interned after the Easter Week Rebellion, were allowed to make personal representations to the Advisory Committee then sitting?

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is the Advisory Committee yet set up, and who are the Members? Can they apply at once?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They can apply, certainly. I hope the Advisory Committee will be set up very shortly. As I said in answer to the previous question, Lord Trevethin has undertaken the duties of Chairman, and I have asked two other
gentlemen to serve, to make three. One has not yet answered, and the other, who has accepted, is Sir Henry Mather-Jackson, barrister and chairman of the Monmouthshire Quarter Sessions.

Sir J. SIMON: Would the Home Secretary make inquiries of the judges—Mr. Justice Sankey, for example—who presided over corresponding committees during the War, as to whether it was not the practice during the War for the President of the Committee to give an opportunity to the man who was interned to be seen by the Committee if there was reason to do so?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly make those inquiries, and I thought. I made it plain that the Committee would see them if they thought that there was a reasonable case for so doing.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the man be seen, not if the Committee asks him to appear, but if he himself asks to be seen by the Committee, as was the custom on previous occasions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have made very careful inquiries as to previous action in this matter, but I cannot give an answer at this moment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a fact that the third member, who has not yet replied, is Sir Hamar Greenwood?

Mr. MAXTON: I am still dealing with my own specific case, and I want to know if there is going to be no difference in treatment between men against whom there is no primâ facie case and who are British-born subjects. This man was born in Glasgow, and you have handed him over to an enemy Government— [Interruption]—

Mr. SPEAKER: May I appeal to the House to allow the hon. Member to put his question?

Mr. MAXTON: I think it would be very desirable. It must be perfectly obvious that this is not a matter for humour so far as I am concerned—to the Government of another country with whose internal affairs we have been told we have no right to interfere—will that do as a definition?—and, therefore, this man, a citizen of my city, and most of these men who have been seized are citizens of my city, without the consent
of the local police, but with the instruction of the English Home Office. I am just coming to my question, Mr. Speaker. I want to know if the Government are not going to admit their mistake and return this British-born citizen at once, without investigation and without an Advisory Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: rose simultaneously with Captain Elliot.

HON. MEMBERS: Elliot!

Mr. SPEAKER: Let us hear the Home Secretary's answer first, at any rate.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is equally applicable to England and Scotland in this ease. It is that, if there be any person who has been interned without any primâ facie case against him, and he is brought before the Advisory Committee, they would clearly order him to be returned.

Mr. MAXTON: But I am bringing it before you is this Advisory Committee to supersede your powers, suspending the ordinary law of the land— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!")—

MALICIOUS INJURIES (COMPENSATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of Persons in Southern Ireland are still awaiting payment of the compensation awarded them by decrees obtained in the Courts as long ago in many cases as 1920, such decrees having been obtained after an appearance had been entered by the local authorities who were the defendants to the same; and whether, as this failure is a breach of the agreement arrived at between the British Government and the representatives of the Irish Free State who signed the Treaty, he will make representations to the Free State Government on the matter, asking that immediate payment may be made with a view to mitigating the hardships and privations which are being suffered by a large number of British subjects who have been driven from their homes and have so far received no compensation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to reply. I would remind the hon. Member that the fact that a claim for compensation was de-
fended by a local authority does not take the case outside the terms of reference of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission unless the local authority in question was the county council or the county borough council in whose area the destruction or injury occurred; and I am not aware that any large number of persons who have obtained decrees which were defended within the meaning of the Commission's terms of reference are still awaiting payment. If the hon. Member, however, brings any such case to my notice, I shall be happy to make inquiry into it.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Will the Government agree that, if any of the arrests recently made under the Defence of the Realm Act are illegal, they will grant compensation for the wrong done to them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for, another Minister.

DEER AND FOX HUNTING.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation to bring within the scope of the Acts for the prevention of cruelty to animals the infliction of cruelty upon wild deer and foxes by causing them to be torn to pieces by dogs for sport?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.

Sir B. FALLE: Are there any really wild deer in this country?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes.

Sir B. FALLE: Where?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the Highlands of Scotland.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it not a fact that carted deer are too valuable to be torn to pieces by hounds?

NORTHLEACH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the North-leach Rural District Council, Oxon, is violating the provisions of The Local Government Act, 1894, Section 46, Sub-section (6); and, if so, what action, if any, he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A complaint has been received, but I have no power to take any action in the matter.

ILLEGAL OPERATIONS (WOMEN).

Mr. BURGESS: 60.
asked the Minister of Health the number of women whose deaths were attributed to illegal operations during the years 1914 and 1922, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures are not yet available for the year 1922. In some cases in 1914 it was not clear, on the information given, by what means abortion had been procured, and accordingly the numbers are given of all cases of death classified under the heading "Attempt to procure abortion," namely, in 1914, 35, and in 1921, 41.

DEATHS (CERTIFICATION).

Mr. SNELL: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give, for each of the five years 1918 to 1922, the number of deaths registered on a certificate of a registered medical practitioner, the number registered on a coroner's certificate after inquest, and the number of uncertified deaths on which no inquest was held?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will circulate, with permission, in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the information required.

Following is the table promised:


DEATUS REGISTERED.


—
On Medical Certificate.
On Coroner's Certificate.
Uncertified.
Total.


1918
570,735
33,012
8,244
611,991


1919
466,068
31,488
6,698
504,254


1920
429,456
31,011
5,663
458,710


1921
424,166
29,304
5,240
458,710


1922
450,996
30,346
5,487
486,829

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

PANEL (MAXIMUM OF PATIENTS).

Mr. BURGESS: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the maximum of patients a
doctor may have on his panel; and to what extent he may increase this number by having an assistant?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The maximum number of patients for whom an insurance practitioner working single handed tray accept responsibility is 3,000. The Insurance and Panel Committees have power to fix a lower number as the limit for their particular area or for any portion of it. The extent to which the number may be increased in the case of a practitioner who employs a permanent assistant is a matter within the discretion of the local committees. The information available indicates that in general the employment of an assistant is held to justify the increase of the number by approximately 50 per cent.

Mr. BURGESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a doctor can deal with 3,000 patients?

Mr. HARDIE: What are the restrictions on a veterinary surgeon when he is dealing with cattle?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think cattle have health insurance yet!

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that the numbers given are not patients, but only potential patients—that there is only a small number of actual patients?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is so.

DRUGS.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 82.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Medical Sub-Committee of the Durham County National Health Insurance Committee have recently fined medical practitioners on the panel for alleged excess in the cost of drugs given to panel patients, asserting that drugs of a less expensive character should have been given and that medicine should have been ordered to have been given at greater intervals: and will he have inquiries made into this with a view to the proper treatment of those suffering from ill health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the first part of the question. I would observe that the withholding of remuneration on the ground of excessive prescribing is settled not by a Sub-Committee, but the Insurance Committee itself, who
receive independent medical advice from the Panel Committee. I have not yet received the reports of the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no jurisdiction to review the Insurance Committee's decisions unless the doctors concerned exercise their right of appeal to me. There must be some safeguard against extravagance in prescribing, but the present arrangements are not working well and are under revision.

WIDOW S' PENSIONS.

Mr. R. DAVIES: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if he will place before the House the Report prepared for the Ministry of Health on the cost of widows' pensions, showing the basis upon which the estimate of over 400,000 widows with dependent children was arrived at?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The estimate mentioned is the result of an actuarial calculation based on the Census of 1911 and other relevant data. Direct information on the subject will be obtainable in due course from the Census of 1921.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper? Will he place before the House the Report asked for in order to clear away the grave suspicion in regard to the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will consider that point.

SMALL-POX.

Mr. R. DAVIES: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether, during the recent small-pox scare in London, any intimation was sent out from his Department to medical officers of health or other persons on the subject of the closing of business premises in the event of smallpox occurring thereon; and, if so, what was the exact tenour of such intimation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only, communication which can be traced on this subject is a statement in reply to an inquiry by a certain firm of solicitors, that the Department were not aware of any statute or regulation empowering the Minister of Health to order the closing of a factory in which cases of small-pox
had occurred. The question whether it is desirable or otherwise to advise the closing of a factory on account of the occurrence of cases of small-pox rests with the medical officer of health of the district.

Mr. F. LEE: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the methods adopted by the medical inspectors of his Department in order to decide whether cases of illness examined by them are smallpox or not; and whether the vaccinal condition of the patients is taken into account as one of the factors to decide the diagnosis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The medical officers of the Ministry who advise in regard to the diagnosis of suspected cases of small-pox are those who have had considerable experience of that disease, and in forming an opinion as to the nature of the illness they take into account all known factors, including the vaccinal condition of the patients.

Mr. LEE: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether the official from his Department who went into Derbyshire to investigate the outbreak of small-pox has made his report; whether such report is available to Members; and whether the suggestion of the district council that there, should be an isolation of contacts is being accepted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. These reports ale intended to be confidential and, as at present advised, I do not propose to publish the reports made by medical officers of the Department in regard to this outbreak. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that isolation of the contacts of a case a small-pox is not generally necessary either in the interests of the contacts or for t he protection of the public, unless and until the contacts themselves develop the disease.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Are we to understand that the report is not available for the council or councils interested in the cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; it is a confidential report to the Department.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Is it not essential to isolate if it is a case of infectious disease?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reference is to "contacts," not to people actually suffering from the disease.

Mr. DAVISON: It is infectious!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The "contacts" are not suffering from the disease.

ANIMALS (HUMANE SLAUGHTER).

Mr. STEWART: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Ministry of Health has issued to the local authorities concerned the circular upon the more humane slaughtering of animals which was promised on 24th July, 1922, by the then head of the Department; if so, will he let Members have a copy of it; and if not, when will it be issued?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my hon. Friend was informed on the 12th December, the issue of the promised circular was deferred in view of the decision to have the matter considered by a Committee of the Cabinet. The deliberations of the Committee have been unavoidably delayed, but the matter is receiving attention.

REIGATE AND REDHILL HOSPITAL.

Mr. EDE: 76.
asked the Minister of health if he is aware that it is proposed to spend £30,000 in alterations to the Reigate and Redhill Hospital, which is built on a cramped and unsuitable site; whether the Surrey Voluntary Hospitals Committee, of which the Lord Chancellor is chairman, has given careful consideration to the proposal and has advised the hospital authorities not to proceed on the present site; and whether, in view of the urgent need for a modern, well-equipped hospital to serve the south-eastern area of Surrey, and especially having regard to the fact that a suitable and commodious site has been presented to the hospital committee, he will endeavour, by conference with all the parties concerned or otherwise, to persuade the hospital committee to reconsider its decision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the Voluntary Hospitals Commission have not received any communication on this matter from the Surrey Committee,
of which the hon. Member is a member, but I have asked that the question should be brought to the notice of his colleagues on that committee.

METHYLATED SPIRITS.

Mr. BRIANT: 77.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the increase in the number of cases of intoxication due to the consumption of methylated spirits; and if he will consider what steps can be taken to render this class of spirits non-potable?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to take this question. The matter is one which has received the attention of my Department for some years in connection with convictions for drunkenness, of which the cases believed to be due to the drinking of methylated spirits have shown a tendency to increase. It is not a matter as to which I have any powers, but I shall continue to study it in consultation with the proper authorities, in the hope of finding preventive measures. I understand, however, that it has not been found practicable to make the spirits more unpalatable than they are at present.

Mr. BRIANT: If the Government have no power to deal with this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say who has power? Is he aware that only last week one constable at a London police court brought forward four of these charges of drunkenness in four days, and as there has been an enormous increase in the number of these cases, if he has not the power. can he say if there is any Government Department that has power to deal with them?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a reduction in the taxation on spirits is likely to reduce the consumption of this spirit?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the papers generally put it that methylated spirits are only consumed in countries where there is prohibition?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS (WALLASEY).

Mr. SEXTON: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rents
of allotments have been increased by the Wallasey Council to approximately £20 an acre; that the council are considering the question of letting the Wallasey golf links at an annual rental of 46s. per acre: and whether, having regard to the view of the allotment holders that their allotments are a recreation, he will inquire intro the reason for the considerable difference in the rents for these two forms of recreation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These matters are within the discretion of the town council, and I have no authority to intervene.

FARM WORKERS, NORFOLK (WAGES).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the deadlock in regard to farm wages in Norfolk, and whether he will take steps to bring the parties together with a view to preventing the strike which is threatened for Friday next?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I have seen the Press reports of the dispute in question and have sent an officer into the area to ascertain the precise situation. I have instructed him to place his services at the disposal of the parties with a view to assisting them in arriving at a settlement.

Mr. BUXTON: It beg to give notice that I will call attention to this subject on the Adjournment of the House at the earliest opportunity.

SANITARY INSPECTORS.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many county districts sanitary inspectors have been appointed at a small salary inclusive of travelling expenses; and whether, in view of the fact that by compelling the inspector to meet his travelling expenses out of his own salary the tendency is to discourage him from incurring any more expenses than he can help, to the detriment of the efficient discharge of his duties, he will issue an instruction that in all future appointments the salary paid must be exclusive of travelling expenses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. If the unsatisfactory conditions to which the hon. Member refers arise, I think that they are probably due in the case of these particular officers not so much to the fact that travelling expenses are not excluded from the salary as to the possible inadequacy of the total remuneration. In such a case it is for the local authority to review the position and to propose the necessary steps to remedy it.

Mr. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment of these officers by the local authorities is subject to the jurisdiction of his own Ministry, and why does he not see that they receive a salary exclusive of travelling expenses?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the Minister of Health not aware that his Department provides part of the salaries, and therefore he is responsible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will look into the matter.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a good thing to discourage servants of the State from incurring more expenses than are necessary?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the St. Austell Rural District Council advertised for a full-time qualified sanitary inspector at a salary of £175 per annum, to include travelling expenses; whether the Ministry sanctioned the appointment at this salary; and whether, in view of the present cost of living and the fact that the inspector in question will have to find his own travelling expenses out of the £175 per annum, he will for all future appointments lay down a scale which would he more in keeping with present-day needs?

Mr. LOWTH: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Little Lever Urban District Council published an advertisement in connection with the joint appointment of a qualified whole-time sanitary inspector and assistant surveyor, the salary for the joint appointment to he £175 per annum, inclusive of bonus; whether the Ministry sanctioned the appointment at this salary; and whether, in view of the important work of a sanitary inspector, the
Ministry will, in future cases, insist upon the payment of a salary commensurate with the duties and with the cost of living?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first two parts of these questions is in the affirmative. The candidates, who are properly qualified, themselves applied for the respective posts with full knowledge of the salaries offered. In present circumstances, I cannot require local authorities to pay salaries in excess of what they themselves consider necessary and what enables them to obtain qualified officers.

EDMONTON INFIRMARY (LUNACY ORDER).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the three days' order, signed by a relieving officer for the committal of a Mrs. H. D. to the lunacy ward of Edmonton Infirmary on 8th November, 1921, has disappeared, and is said to have been cut out, from the guardians' book; that a doctor's statement given to this relieving officer, imputing insanity to the said lady, has in like manner mysteriously disappeared; that the lady was found to be suffering from concussion of the brain, due to a fall on the head; that when her son hurried to her, from a distance, and, finding her sane, applied for leave to take her home, assuming responsibility in accordance with Section 22 of the Lunacy Act, he was told he had no voice in the matter; that the lady was not seen by a magistrate at any time, and that the infirmary doctor only looked at her from the foot of her bed; that she was detained for 17 days in the company of lunatics and treated with indignity, classed undeservedly as a lunatic and then set free, and that, or, being questioned as to these proceedings, the board of control told the infirmary authorities to withhold all information; and, in view of the suspicion attaching to the disappearance of documents, which were admittedly in the keeping of the infirmary officials, will he institute an inquiry in order to discover the culprits, who may be supposed to have abstracted them to hide their delinquency, and also cause strict investigation to be made into the infringements of the Lunacy Act which secured the illegal committal and
detention of a patient suffering from the usual symptoms of a prolonged state of unconsciousness, due to severe head injury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am asking the guardians for a report on this case, and when it is received I will communicate with the hon. Member.

OFFICIAL REFEREE.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 89.
asked the Attorney-General whether he has had his attention called to the proceedings in Shrager v. Dighton and others, which occupied 25 days in hearing before the Official Referee; whether he is aware that the costs incurred in this case are estimated at £25,000; and whether he will move for a Select Committee to examine into this example of costly judicial proceedings with a view to introducing legislation designed to provide means whereby litigants can secure cheaper and speedier decisions?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): My attention has not been called to this case, in which the Crown was not a party nor have I any information as to the costs incurred. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

DEFAULT SUMMONSES (SERVICE FEES).

Mr. LEACH: 90.
asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that the fee for service of default summonses in the County Court, where served by an officer of the Court, is 1s. for each person served, which fee includes mileage and filing; that solicitors are allowed 5s. for service, 3s. 4d. to 6s. 8d. for affidavit. of service, and a sum not exceeding 5s. to 11s. 8d. for mileage for performing this duty, with consequent hardship upon needy persons; and that this duty is taken out of the hands of the officers of the Court for the purpose of charging extra costs against defendants; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to stop this practice?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A default summons may, at the option of the plaintiff, be served by himself, or by some
clerk or servant in his permanent and exclusive employment, or by his solicitor. or by an officer of the Court. If the Court serves the summons an inclusive fee of 1s. for each person served is charged. If a solicitor is employed he is entitled to charge an inclusive fee of 3s. if the amount is between £2 and £5, or 5s. if the amount is between £5 and £10. A charge for mileage or for affidavit of service can only be made on the service of a special default summons, that is, a summons to recover more than £10. I see no reason to believe that the suggestion that the duty is, as a general practice. taken out of the hands of officers of the Court for the purpose of making costs is well founded, for I am informed that, taken as a whole, the operation is not remunerative to a solicitor at the charges allowed on taxation.

LONDON PARKS (WASTE PAPER).

Captain MOREING: 91.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give an estimate of the cost incurred monthly by his Department in gathering waste paper and refuse deposited by visitors to the London parks?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): The average monthly expenditure during the summer months is £400, and £90 during the winter months.

Captain MOREING: Can the right hon. Gentleman bring this waste to the notice of the public?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for having mentioned that very desirable object. No doubt there is much money spent in this way which could be saved if the public would take more care.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be well to give the officials instructions to remonstrate with these who are careless, which, to my own certain knowledge, they never do?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would not this cost he very much reduced if more receptacles for waste paper were placed in the parks?

Sir J. BAIRD: The best way to reduce the cost is for the public not to scatter so much waste paper about.

WESTMINSTER HALL ROOF.

Captain MOREING: 92.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the great interest taken in the matter, he will give facilities for Members to visit the roof of Westminster Hall prior to the final removal of the scaffolding?

Sir J. BAIRD: Facilities will be given for two parties to view the roof of Westminster Hall at 12 noon and 4 p.m. on Wednesday next, the 21st instant, under the guidance of Sir Frank Baines, the Director of Works, who has been in charge of the repairs throughout. I would suggest that Members should assemble in front of the war memorial at St. Stephen's Entrance at the hours named.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Will the scaffolding be still there?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid it would be an acrobatic feat for most Members to visit the roof without the scaffolding.

STATUES (CLEANING).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 93.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the statue of Lord Napier of Magdala is constantly washed while the statue of Field-Marshal Lord Strathnairn has never been washed; whether he will take steps to have that of Lord Strathnairn washed in future; and call he say who has been responsible for the past neglect?

Sir J. BAIRD: The statue of Lord Strathnairn is not in the charge of my Department.

M'GRIGOR'S BANK.

Mr. TILLETT: 94.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War on what grounds the War Office has refused to assist regimental funds which have suffered as a result of the failure of M`Grigor's Bank; and why the distinction is made between compensation to officers and the non-payment of any compensation to funds concerned with private soldiers and non-commissioned officers, many of which funds are devoted solely to charitable purposes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): In view of the very varied nature of the accounts classed as regimental funds, it was decided by the Government that the
grant of 10s. in the £ should be given only in cases where the loss involved serious hardship to individuals. That, I think, covers the hon. Member's point about charitable purposes. The decision whether such hardship exists in each case was entrusted to a Committee presided over by Lord Askwith. The War Office is giving effect to the findings of that Committee. In this respect there is no distinction between officers and men.

SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY JOURNALS (POST OFFICE REGISTRATION).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 96.
asked the Postmaster-General whether steps can be taken to register the journals of a scientific society published monthly as newspapers, in view of the small cost that would be entailed?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir W. Joyn-son-Hicks): The newspaper rate of postage is confined by Statute to journals published at intervals of not more than seven days. My hon. Friend regrets that he cannot undertake to promote legislation extending the rate to monthly newspapers. Such an extension could not be restricted to the journals in which the hon. and gallant Member is interested, and would involve a considerable sacrifice of revenue on a post which is, and always has been, carried on at a loss.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the extra loss would be?

Major BARNSTON: I cannot at the moment, but I will have inquiries made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TRAINING COLLEGES.

Viscountess ASTOR: 98.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the question of training colleges; and, if so, in view of the preponderance of women in the teaching profession, whether he will give an undertaking that women shall be adequately represented on this Committee?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I will certainly
bear in mind the suggestion made in the last part of the question.

Mr. LUNN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a more definite answer to the first part of the question?

Mr. WOOD: I have stated that the answer to that is in the affirmative.

Mr. LUNN: We got the same answer weeks ago. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to appoint this Committee?

Mr. WOOD: I said a fortnight ago I was appointing such a Committee. I cannot produce a ready-made one out of my pocket every week. I have to take time to consider who would be suitable Members and to invite them to serve, and that I am doing now.

ST. GEORGE'S DAY.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 99.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of making St. George's Day a holiday for English school children, and issuing instructions that the previous day be set apart for special teaching on the great events in English history?

Mr. WOOD: I think the question whether my hon. and gallant. Friend's suggestions should be adopted is one which is rightly left to the discretion of local education and school authorities. I do not doubt that these bodies are fully alive to the importance of the considerations present to his mind.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that the Scottish and the Welsh celebrate their national saint days in this manner? Is anything likely to be done unless the hon. Gentleman makes a move himself?

Mr. WOOD: I am afraid I have no knowledge of what Scotland may do in this matter. I have no power to require local authorities to do this. If they are willing to do it I shall be only too glad.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider recommending the local education authorities to give instruction on international history on 30th April and set apart 1st May as an international holiday?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that St.. George is a more inspiring figure than Herr Karl Marx?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT SERVICES' ASSOCIATION.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 100.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the statement contained in a memorial from the Council of the Bombay Presidency Association of European Government Services, that many of the members of those services have almost reached the limit of endurance, he is now able to give an assurance that relief, where it is urgently necessary, will be given at an early date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Melton on 26th February, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

GOVERNMENT CHAPLAINS.

Mr. RAWLINSON: 101.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the serious dislocation likely to occur in the supply of chaplains for British India and the consequent mischief likely to arise, he will see his way to defer the operation of the order made last autumn stopping the recruitment of Government chaplains for British India; and whether he will state for what period of years such Government chaplains were as a rule appointed?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India is fully alive to the situation which the hon. Member describes, and is in communication with the Government of India. Chaplains qualify for retiring pension after 20 years' residence in India and 23 years' service, and ordinarily may be required to retire at the age of 55. They may also now retire with a bonus on completion of five years' service.

Mr. RAWLINSON: This question was put some weeks ago and the matter is now getting urgent as, unless the orders withdrawn, the supply will cease?

Earl WINTERTON: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State quite appreciates the urgency of the matter.

IMPERIAL WIRELESS COMMUNICA TION.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-
General whether the arrangements to hand over to a commercial company Imperial wireless communications from Great Britain to British Possessions are finally concluded, except as regards the actual licences, and whether, as regards the terms of the licences, the House will be given an opportunity of discussion before they come into effect?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to answer this question. The policy of the Government in this matter was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 5th March, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for the Frame Division (Mr. Hurd). The provisions of the licences have not yet been settled, but when completed they will be laid on the Table of the House. The Government are not prepared to provide a special opportunity for discussion, but the question can be raised on the Estimates.

STEAM TUG "ATLAS" (ARRESTS).

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment of nine British seamen at Corunna, members of the crew of the steam tug "Atlas"; whether they allege that they are ill-fed and confined with felons, and whether immediate steps can be taken for their liberation, and for an investigation of the case?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): My Department received information yesterday from the Crown Agents to the Colonies that they had received a telegram from the master of the steam tug "Atlas" as follows: "Part crew in mutiny since Saturday. All under arrest —signing on local crew. Full details follow." I have also received from the hon. and gallant Member a copy of a letter from one of the crew stating that the crew had not received proper rations, and that numerous complaints hail been made, but had led to no improvement and complaining of the circumstances of their arrest and imprisonment. I have telegraphed to the British Consul at Corunna for a full report, and I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HQUSE.

Sir W. DAVJSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the House has had two late Sittings already this week, and whether, in view of the Motion standing in his name to-day for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, he can arrange the business of the House so that late sittings are not so frequent?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that the House has already been asked to sit up late twice this week, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the first occasion was caused by the fact that a Private Bill was put down for discussion at 8.15 p.m., and the second by Motions exempted from the Eleven o'clock Rule, and moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government were not, therefore, responsible for either of those late sittings. With regard to the Motion standing in my name to-day, it will be necessary for me to move a similar Motion tomorrow. I trust that the sittings will not

be late. It has been agreed through the usual channels that Mr. Speaker shall be moved out of the Chair, and the necessary Votes taken in Committee on the Air and Army Estimates by the end of the ordinary sittings of the House, but, as it is essential that these Votes should be taken this week, I am asking the House to accept these Motions as a precautionary measure, in case it may be necessary for the Chairman of Committees to put the Votes after the usual time for ending business has passed. I would remind the House that there will be further opportunity next week for the discussion of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Estimates on the Report stage of these Votes, for which I hope that a day and a half will be available.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 160.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[4.8 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Cadogan, Major Edward
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram (Godfray)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fildes, Henry


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Chapman, Sir S.
Flanagan, W. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Forestier-Walker, L.


Astor, Viscountess
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Furness, G. J.


Banner, Sir John S. Harwood-
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K
Ganzoni, Sir John


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gates, Percy


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Collie, Sir John
Gilbert, James Daniel


Becker, Harry
Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Goff, Sir R. Park


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Greaves-Lord, Walter


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, H.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Gretton, Colonel John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Blundell, F. N.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davidson. J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hall, Rr.Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W. D'by)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Halstead, Major D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Harrison, F. C.


Bruford, R.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Harvey, Major S. E.


Bruton, Sir James
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hawke, John Anthony


Buckingham, Sir H.
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ednam, Viscount
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Bumey, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Ellis, R. G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Butcher, Sir John George
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Buit, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Murchison, C. K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nail, Major Joseph
Sinclair, Sir A.


Hood, Sir Joseph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Singleton, J, E.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Skelton, A. N.


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hughes, Collingwood
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sparkes, H. W.


Hume, G. H.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hurd, Percy A.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col- Sir John
Stanley, Lord


Hutchison, G, A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pease, William Edwin
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Stott, Lt.-Col- W. H.


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Penny, Frederick George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Perring, William George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peto, Basil E.
Sutcliffe, T.


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Philipson, H. H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lamb, J. Q.
Price, E. G.
Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Privett, F. J.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Tubbs, S. W.


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Raine, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lorimer, H. D.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Wallace, Captain E.


Lougher, L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Waring, Major Walter


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warner, Sir T, Courtenay T.


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Remnant, Sir James
Wheler, Col. Granville C H.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rentoul, G. S.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Whitla, Sir William


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P, (Chertsey)
Winterton, Earl


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wise, Frederick


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Marqesson, H, D. R.
Robertson, I. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. c. K.
Rothschild, Lionel de
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mercer, Colonel H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Molley, Major L. G. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney



Moore, Major, General Sir Newton J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colone


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sandon, Lord
Gibbs.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Shakespeare, G. H.



NOES.


Adams, D.
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Collison, Levi
Hayday, Arthur


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Attlee, C. R.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Herriotts, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hill, A.


Barnes, A.
Duffy, T. Gavan
Hinds, John


Batey, Joseph
Ede, James Chuter
Hirst, G. H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N)
Hogge, James Myles


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Falconer, J.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Bonwick, A.
Foot, Isaac
Irving, Dan


Bowdler, W. A.
Gosling, Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Briant, Frank
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Broad, F. A.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Bromfield, William
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)


Brotherton, J.
Greenall, T.
Jones, R. T, (Carnarvon)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)


Buckle, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Burgess, S.
Groves, T.
Kirkwood, D.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Buxton Charles (Accrington)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lansbury, George


Buxtor, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lawson, John James


Cairns, John
Harbord, Arthur
Leach, W.


Cape, Thomas
Hardie, George D.
Lee, F.


Chappie, W. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Clarke Sir E. C.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Linfield, F. C.




Lowth, T.
Ritson, J.
Tout, W. J.


MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Travelyan, C. P.


M'Entee, V. L.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


March, S.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Warne, G. H.


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Rose, Frank H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)


Maxton, James
Saklatvala, S.
Webb, Sidney


Millar, J. D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sexton, James
Weir, L. M.


Muir, John W.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Welsh, J. C.


Murnin, H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, J.


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John
Wheatley, J.


Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Simpson, J. Hope
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Nichol, Robert
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Whiteley, W.


Oliver, George Harold
Snell, Harry
Wignall, James


Paling, W.
Snowden, Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Parker, H. (Hanley)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Phillipps, Vivian
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.
Wright, W.


Pringle, W. M. R.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richards, R.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thornton, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Riley, Ben
Tillett, Benjamin
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the condition of British Industries, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Philip Dawson.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the question of Parliamentary Control of Foreign Affairs, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

DISPOSAL BOARD (CONTRACTS).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to some of the Contracts entered into by the Disposal Board, and to move, a Resolution.—[Sir James Remnant.]

LOCAL ELECTIONS (ALTERNATIVE VOTE) BILL,

" to authorise the introduction of the alternative vote in local elections; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. CRAPPLE; supported by Mr. Pringle, Mrs. Wintringham, Mr. Hope Simpson, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. Falconer, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Lin-field, Major Dudgeon, Mr. Frederick Martin, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. Foot; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 28th March, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

Order for Committee read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
I am sorry the first Debate we should have on the Air Estimates should be a short evening. I can promise hon. Members that I will make as short a speech as I can, but I would ask for their attention in view of the fact that I have to cover a wide field and to deal with several important questions. I would ask them, in accordance with the usual practice, to allow me to get Votes A 1, 4, 2 and 3 this evening. At the same time. I can assure them that, if the House allows me to get those Votes, hon. Members are not sacrificing any opportunity of criticising my administration. Vote 5 will remain open. My salary is on Vote 5, and it is open to any hon. Member after this evening to criticise, any item in my administration. I propose to deal in particular with three subjects. In the first place I want to say a few words about the principal events which have taken place in the field of air administration since last year. Secondly I want to ask the careful attention of the House to what is really the big problem of air administration, the problem of air defence, and thirdly, I want to explain to the House, as far as I can, the Government attitude with reference to various questions connected with civil aviation.

PRINCIPAL EVENTS OF 1922.

First, with reference to the events of the last 12 months. As far as events at home are concerned, I need not detain the House at any great length. The year has been, on the whole, an uneventful year, though one of steady progress. We have been going on with the task, always a very difficult task, of building up a permanent Air Force from the very beginning. At the end of the War there was no permanent Air Force in existence at all. There have been difficulties in connection with recruiting, there have
been difficulties in connection with training, there have been difficulties in connection with equipment, but I hope we are gradually overcoming them. Certainly as far as recruiting goes we have found that we have got an excellent type of recruit in adequate numbers. As to the training, our various training schemes have been going ahead, and perhaps the most noticeable event in connection with training during the year has been the-opening of the Air Staff College at Andover. There is another difficulty of which I should like to remind the House in passing. I said just now that at the end of the War there was no permanent Air Force in existence at all. At the end of the War also the Air Force possessed no permanent buildings. The force, being the creation of the War, was housed exclusively in war huts and temporary buildings. One of the tasks with which we have been confronted, a task which necessarily has meant the expenditure of a good deal of money, has been to make these war huts habitable, to re-condition them and, where we could, to replace them with permanent buildings. But, as I said, I need not dwell upon this part of air administration. As far as home affairs are concerned, the year has been uneventful.

AIR COMMAND IN IRAQ.

When I pass from home affairs to events abroad, there are one or two conspicuous events to which I should like to draw attention. First and foremost there is the fact that for the first time in the history, not only of this country, but of the world, we have started an independent air command. In Iraq to-day there is no longer a general officer commanding the troops, but for the first time in history there is art air officer commanding. I suggest that hon. Members should set aside their views as to whether our political policy in Iraq is wise or not, and should look with attention and sympathy at the fact that for the first time in history we have started this independent Air Command. We have not, been able, I freely admit, to make the reductions we had hoped. That has been exclusively due to the fact that we have not been able to conclude peace with Turkey, but I can assure the House that from the day peace is made with Turkey we hope to get down to the line suggested by the Cairo Conference, in which the garrison
in Iraq would he eight squadrons and a very greatly reduced number of infantry troops.

Every impartial inquirer who has been to Iraq or has looked into the state of affairs without prejudice bears witness to the fact that this experiment in Air Command is working very well. We believe it is going to save a great deal of money and, perhaps more important than that, we believe it is going to mean the saving of a great many lives and a great deal of effort. Over and over again, even during the short time during which there has been this Air Command in existence, we have been able, by well directed air operations, to avoid the expense, both in men and money, which would have been entailed by ground military expeditions.

Let me give the House one or two examples of the successful experiments to which I have alluded. It has been possible to supply an armoured car column and 16 vehicles with stores, spares, petrol and rations for 17 days entirely from the air. It has been possible to evacuate 67 persons, military and civil, by air to a point 70 miles distant in the space of little more than two hours. Only the other day, two companies of an Indian regiment, amounting to over 300 men, with Lewis guns and 30,000 rounds of reserve ammunition were taken by aeroplane to a disturbed district, 65 miles distant, within 24 hours, at a time when the roads were impassable and when it would have been otherwise impossible to move troops at all. It has been possible to mark out by the longest furrow in the world, 470 miles in length, the desert route from Amman to Bagdad, and to keep a regular service of military aeroplanes carrying mails and passengers between Cairo and Bagdad.

CONTROL WITHOUT OCCUPATION.

I think hon. Members will agree that these are very interesting experiments. I think they will further agree that if the experiment of this Air Command is as satisfactory as we think it is going to be, many of the most difficult problems of Imperial communications and the policing of the distant parts of the Empire will have been solved. The problem that we are trying to solve is the problem, if I may describe it in one single sentence,
of control without occupation. If we can succeed in solving that problem, the effect that it will have upon Imperial communications and -von the garrisoning of various parts of the Empire cannot be exaggerated. In a lesser degree, we are attempting to solve the same problem in Palestine, in Trans-Jordania, in Somaliland and in Aden.

INDIA AND DARDANELLES.

In India, I speak in the presence of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, we shall see in the future developments upon the same lines. Let me tell the House, in passing, in connection with the air in India, that all the evidence goes to show that the value of air operations is being better and better realised. The deficiencies in equipment which caused such great concern last summer are being made good. The Air Officer Commanding in India has now direct access to the Viceroy, and the headquarters of the Air Force have been moved to a point in close proximity to the headquarters of the Army. All these points go to show that in India the value of these air developments is beginning to be felt.

There is only one further field in connection with foreign operations to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members, and that is the operations that have taken place in the Dardanelles. There, again, the House will be glad to hear that the air units have acquitted themselves most creditably. We have the impartial testimony of General Haring-ton as to their achievements. The air units there have succeeded, among other things, in showing that, at any rate on active service, soldiers, sailors and airmen can all work harmoniously together. Let me give the House two examples.

Number 4 Squadron is a squadron allotted for co-operation with the Army. Yet 12 of its machines were erected and flown off the deck of an aircraft carrier within 53 hours of its arrival in the Dardanelles. Later on it was found expedient, with the consent of the Naval Commander-in-Chief, to detach some of the seaplanes and ship aeroplanes from their carrier ships and to place them in a shore aerodrome for co-operation with the infantry and artillery. Just as the Army unit was able to undertake naval work. so the Naval unit was able to work from
land under the orders of the General Officer Commanding. As soon as peace is made with Turkey, I shall be able to give the House many more interesting details showing the success of the air arm during the Near East crisis.

HOME DEFENCE AND PROPER STANDARD OF BRITISH AIR POWER.

I now propose to leave this part of the subject which deals with the past, and to ask the attention of hon. Members to the very important and serious question of air defence. Ever since I have been Secretary of State for Air I have been conscious of a general feeling of anxiety, both inside and outside the House, as to whether our air defence is adequate. One sees that anxiety expressed day after day in the Press, and one hears it in general conversation. In this House I have had it constantly brought to my attention by the fact that hon. Members on all sides have asked me week after week questions as to the comparison of the strength of this or that part of our air defences With the air strength of some other Power. I propose, therefore, with the approval of hon. Members, to give the facts and figures so far as I can, and to ask the help of all hon. Members, for this is not a party question, in our attempts to arrive at a sound and wise national air policy.

Before I give these facts and figures, I wish to make one overriding observation, which must be connected with every sentence I use, and with every figure I give. If I make a comparison of our strength with the French strength, no one here or in France must form the impression that for one moment I believe war even remotely possible between the two Allies. No Frenchman should certainly suspect me of any such unnatural idea. Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament may remember that throughout the whole of its duration I did as a private Member what I could to bring about a guarantee Treaty between ourselves and the French. That in itself should be sufficient to show that there has not been the remotest idea in my mind of any such disastrous contingency as hostilities between the two Allies.

I quote the French figures, not because it can be even remotely imagined that hostilities could break out between the two Allies, but because France of all the Great Powers has most fully developed its air arm. The simple fact that one of
the Great Powers should attach such importance to the air arm forces the question upon us whether we, the other great European Power, are giving the British air arm sufficient support. As I wish to make the problem as concrete as possible, I give the House one or two comparisons.

In November, 1918, at the end of the War, the Royal Air Force was composed of 30,122 officers, 263,410 airmen and 3,300 service aeroplanes. To-day it is composed of 3,071 officers, 27,499 airmen and 371 first line aeroplanes, that is excluding reserve and training machines; a total of 30,000 against nearly 300,000 at the end of the War.

In the case of the French, it would be misleading to make a comparison of personnel as so large a part of it is provided in France from purely military personnel. The only accurate comparison, therefore, is one of machines. In November, 1918, the French had 3,600 service machines, to-day she has 1,260. The House, therefore, will see that, whilst our peace Air Service is only about one-tenth of our war Air Service, the French Air Service of to-day is one-third of what it was in 1918.

That is, however, not the whole story, for not less than two-thirds of the British Service machines are overseas, while three-quarters of the French machines are in France. Of our 34 Service squadrons—two of which are included in the expansion scheme of which I shall speak later—18 are in Egypt, the Mediterranean and the Near East, six in India, four allocated to naval work at home, and one to Army work at home. That leaves only five Service squadrons in Great Britain for home defence. Of these five squadrons only one is a fighter and four are bombers. I may mention that in France there are 32 fighting squadrons and 32 bombing squadrons. Moreover, in 1925, the French programme that has already been frequently discussed in the Chamber of Deputies will presumably be completed. This will mean that whilst France will have 2,180 Service machines, we shall only have 575, even when we include the 15 additional regular squadrons about which I shall say a word or two in a few minutes.

In 1922 200 machines, civil and military, were built in Great Britain, 3,300 in France.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What is the proportion of civil and military machines?

Sir S. HOARE: I think the French figures are 300 civil and 3,000 military.
Further, it should be remembered, in connection with the possibility of quick expansion, that, whilst the number of men employed in the French aircraft industry is about 9,250, the number employed in the aircraft industry in Great Britain is about 2,500. I am fully prepared to admit the many differences between the British and the French position. France has its great conscript army and a consequent need for more army air units than ourselves. France has a long land frontier and the constant feeling of insecurity Even so, the disparity is overwhelming, and this question must arise in the mind of every Member. If one great European Power has so big an Air Force and another great European Power so small an Air Force, which is right? Whilst it is inconceivable that these two great allies should ever embark upon hostilities with each other, how is it possible to justify the fact that one of them has an Air Force only a quarter the size of the other?
I would ask the serious attention of hon. Members to this question. And I would venture to make to them one or two suggestions before they answer it. In the first place, I would venture to point out to them the great difficuly of applying any rough and ready standard for deciding off-hand, and at the present moment, the strength of the British Air Force.
For many years past the Navy and the Army have been entrusted with definite Imperial responsibilities. It is only now that, with the independent Air Command in Iraq, and the responsibility for anti-air defence in Great Britain, the Air Force is being given any definite Imperial duties. Hon. Members, therefore, should be clear in their own minds as to the national and Imperial duties to be imposed upon the Air Force before they settle upon any definite standard of strength.
They should also be clear about the cost. In matters of national defence the question of cost is not a final factor, but it must obviously be taken into account. In 1913–14 the Navy Estimates were £48,809,300, and the Army Estimates were £28,220,000, about seventy-seven millions
in all. This year the Navy Estimates are £58,000,000, the Army Estimates £52,000,000, and the gross Air Estimates £18,605,000, making £128,680,000 in all. In other words, the defence Estimates are already double what they were before the War. If we now decided to apply a one-power standard to the Air, without making corresponding reductions in the Estimates of the Army and Navy, it would mean an immediate increase over our gross Estimate of about £5,000,000, but it would mean an eventual increase, in order to keep pace with the progress of other great Powers, of £17,000,000.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why does the right hon. Gentleman deal with the net Estimates of the Army and Navy and the gross Estimates of the Air Ministry?

Sir S. HOARE: I agree with my right hon. Friend that I should have taken the net or gross figures of both, but so far as the Air is concerned let me take the net. Taking the net cost of the squadrons this year at £15,000,000, applying a one-power standard would increase the expenditure to £23,000,000 at once and to £35,000,000 eventually to keep pace with the growing programme of other Powers. For a one-power standard it may be assumed that the cost would be £35,000,000 a year net and our total defence Estimates would be over £145,000,000. The House should note this figure of £17,000,000, for it will show that it is possible to increase our Air Force six-fold with an expenditure that is little more than double the present expenditure. I suggest, however, that from every point of view, the point of view of economy, the point of view of humanity, and the point of view of common sense we should try to avoid, if it be possible, another and a new lap in the old race of armaments.

NATIONAL DEFENCE INQUIRY.

It is on this account that I welcome the comprehensive inquiry to be held into the whole question of National and Imperial Defence. I have only been connected a very short time with one of the defence Services, but it has been long enough to show me that you cannot isolate the problems of one Service from the problems of the other. The problem must be treated as a whole. The members of the Committee of Imperial Defence will
be able, to survey the whole problem of defence, the problem of the Army, the problem of the Navy and the problem of the Air. No part of the problem can be isolated from the other parts. Particularly do I look for guidance in their deliberations with reference to the strength of the Air Force. What Imperial responsibilities is the Air Force to undertake? What is to be its relation to the other fighting Services? Is there some standard, like the one-Power standard, at which we should aim, and, if so, can we make equivalent economies in other fields of defence? Only by a comprehensive inquiry can these questions be satisfactorily answered, and only by the help of all parties in the House can we agree upon a national air policy that is neither excessive nor inadequate. But I do not want to leave the problem of air defence with a number of unanswered questions. For until we have decided upon our air standard, we have still to make the most of the resources at our disposal. So long as we have a small force, we must have nothing but the very best. We must keep it an air corps d'élite, highly trained, well equipped and capable, so far as possible, of quick expansion.

TRAINING.

It is on that account that, judged by the test of expenditure in comparison with its size, our Air Force costs a considerable sum of money. All the more because it is a small force we have to concentrate upon such problems as the problem of training. I have been very much struck since I have been connected with the Air Ministry with the great variety and intensiveness of the training that is now being given. By our training we are doing everything that we can to bring the officers and men to the highest point of air efficiency. I wish that hon. Members would find time to visit one or two of our training establishments, for instance, Halton, where the boys are trained, or Cranwell, that is the Sandhurst of the Air Force, where the cadets are trained. They would there see for themselves the variety of the intensive training that is going on.

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENT.

Then there is the problem of research, a problem that is the more urgent from the fact that, the smaller the force, the
more vital is research. With the resources at our disposal we are trying to hold the balance between pure and applied research. Certainly the various organisations concerned, the Department of Supply and Research at the Air Ministry, the Aeronautical Research Committee, the National Physical Laboratory, the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, and certain of the Universities seem to be working in close co-operation. Perhaps in some future Debate I shall have an opportunity of going into greater detail on this subject. Let me only say that we are at present experimenting in particular upon control of aircraft at low speeds, the use of crude oil instead of petrol for fuel, metal construction, and the many problems connected with economy in flying. The research upon helicopters is beginning to reach the stage of full scale experiment, and I propose to advertise prizes to the amount of £50,000 for a competition in connection with this field of experiment. I am also hoping to be able to make a small grant for the encouragement of gliding.

RESERVES.

5.0 P.M.

I come now to the question, almost equally important, of reserves. If our small force is to expand quickly the problem of reserves is obviously one of vital importance. I think hon. Members will be glad to see that for the first time in the Air Estimates we have this year a special Vote devoted to the Air Force Reserves. They will see the details set out in Vote 7 and also that during the year we hope to have an average strength on the reserve of about 500 officers and between 7,000 and 8,000 men. In this connection we are hoping to carry through a scheme for enabling officers and men of the reserve to train with a certain number of selected aviation firms. It may be necessary in the future to supplement these provisions by setting up some kind of auxiliary air force, but that is a question for the moment undecided. By these means we hope to build up in the course of the next two or three years a reserve of 1,000 officers and 12,000 men.

EXPANSION FOR HOME DEFENCE AND NAVAL CO-OPERATION.

Lastly, there is the actual expansion that I am asking for the purposes of home defence. I am asking in these Estimates for 15 additional regular
squadrons and for three additional squadrons for co-operation work with the Navy—an equivalent of 18 additional squadrons in all. As to the 15 regular squadrons, I should like freely to admit that the initiation of that part of the programme of expansion was due to my predecessor. Captain Guest, it will be remembered, obtained the approval of the late Government and the general assent of all parties in the House to this increase last summer. I am glad to say that the present Government is pushing ahead this scheme of expansion and we hope during the course of the next 12 months to have an equivalent of seven or eight of these squadrons formed. We hope further to have the whole scheme completed, if no unforeseen event occurs, during 1925. This scheme I would remind the House is roughly estimated to cost about £2,000,000 a year.

Mr. HARRISON: Is that in excess of the nine and a half squadrons formerly used for this purpose?

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I do not know what the hon. Member means by the nine and a half squadrons formerly used for this purpose.

Mr. HARRISON: I am reading from the Geddes Report, page 18.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not recall the actual passage at the moment. It is 15 additional squadrons over the 32 squadrons which have been in existence last year. In addition to these 15 regular squadrons for home defence there are the equivalent of three additional squadrons for Naval co-operation work. I suggest that the House should mark this increase for the naval unite. The last thing in the world I wish to do is to embark on a controversy which has been going on for two or three years, but I should like to remove a misconception which, it seems to me, has become prevalent. I have seen it said—not, I freely admit, by anyone at the Admiralty—that the Air Force has starved the Navy in the matter of air craft. Quite apart from the merits of the question of control, I do not think any hon. Member who looks impartially on the history of the last two or three years would say that that is so. The Geddes Committee recommended that the squadrons that were co-operating with the Navy should be
reduced from six to two. Not only have we refused to make this cut, but we are actually increasing the naval squadrons to eight, and, moreover, during the last two or three years, so far as I know, we have never failed to carry out the naval requirements. A great part of our research work has been devoted to naval work. Many of our best types of machines have been made for naval work. Our naval air work to-day is many stages ahead of the naval air work of any other great Power; whether it be in the matter of deck landings, of torpedo attacks from the air or of long distance flights by flying boats our naval work is stages ahead of the naval air work of any other great naval Power, and the fact that the other great Powers recognise that that is so is shown by the frequent requests that we have for air information from them and by the further fact that a great Power like Japan actually comes to us for instructors in this particular branch of air work.
I have said nothing of the Army cooperation work. Not because I did not think it was vital but because we are asking for no extra military squadrons in these Estimates. One of the air cooperating squadrons is at present in the Dardanelles, but I am able to assure the House that, in spite of this fact, we are able to maintain our co-operating units with the army at Farnborough and on Salisbury Plain and at Maresfield, and, as far as I know, within our financial limitations, the Army is very well satisfied with the air work we have been able to give it during the last 12 months.

CIVIL AVIATION.

I have put before the House the principal facts as they appear to me upon the military side of British aviation. I wish to say a word or two on the other very important side of it— the side of civil aviation. I have left the question of civil aviation to the end, not because I think it unimportant or because I think it can be dissociated from the military side of the problem. I believe that civil aviation can in future be a very valuable asset to us, an asset which it is the more important to develop in view of the fact that our military Air Force, at any rate at present, is comparatively weak in comparison with the Air Force of other great Powers. Civil aviation can be a very valuable asset; but I should not like hon. Members to think that civil
aviation can be a substitute for military aviation any more than the mercantile marine can be a substitute for the Navy. In point of fact, I believe that civil machines will tend to diverge in type from military machines, and however much civil aviation is likely to develop it can never provide a first line of defence necessary to meet the shock of air invasion. I wish to see civil aviation develop, not because I believe it can be a substitute for military aviation, but because I believe it can be a very valuable supplement to it. Civil aviation, like every other industry, fell upon bad times during the trade slump. The Air Ministry, struggling to bring its Estimates down to the Geddes' Committee level, had very little money except for the bare necessities of home and Imperial defence. The result has been that our expenditure on civil aviation has been restricted almost entirely to certain subsidies to air transport companies, to the provision of certain aerodromes and to a certain amount of civil aviation research.

AERODROMES.

As to aerodromes there will be a number of important questions coming up to be settled in the near future as to what kind of facilities the State ought to give to civil aviation. In the meanwhile the Air Ministry is, by international agreement, maintaining two civil Air Force ports, Lympne and Croydon, and there has recently been set up a civil aviation Advisory Board—a body to which I owe a great deal for its valuable advice—to consider the question as to whether Croydon is the most suitable aerodrome for London. The Committee reported that it has come to the conclusion that of the various aerodromes available, Croydon can be developed with less expense and probably with more success than any other. I accept the view of the Committee. Accordingly, I am including in this year's Estimates a small sum for the preliminary steps to make the necessary developments at Croydon. So much for the question of aerodromes.

CROSS-CHANNEL TRANSPORT.

I come now to what is a much more important question connected with civil aviation, the question of civil air transport and subsidies. When I took office I found in existence an arrangement under which £600,000 was to be distributed in
three yearly grants to certain civil air transport companies. There were three such companies in existence, and a fourth company was coming into existence in the course of this year. I found, further, that the period of the contract would end in 12 months' time, that is, in April, 1924, and that the companies concerned were already asking, and in my view rightly asking, what the policy of the Government would be at the end of the 12 months' period. It seemed to me that the question to be decided was mainly a business question. We already had a great mass of aeronautical information on the subject. We already knew that cross-Channel services could be worked regularly and punctually We already knew, for instance, that 77 per cent. of the passengers who were carried last year, of a total of 12,300 passengers, were carried on British machines. We also knew that not a single fatal accident had occurred on any British machine to any passenger during last year. All those facts we knew. We also knew that, looked at from the national point of view, civil aviation had not succeeded as much as we had hoped. If the subsidies were regarded solely from a national point of view, £600,000 would have been spent at the end of the coming financial year, and only 18 pilots and 20 civil machines were engaged upon the work.

It seemed to me, in view of all this, that it would be well to have a short, restricted inquiry by two or three impartial business men, who would look at the question without prejudice and with no pre-conceived opinions. Accordingly, I appointed the Committee of three, that is now known as the Hambling Committee, the report of which many hon. Members have no doubt read. Whether hon. Members agree or not with the recommendations of the Committee, they will, I think, be grateful to these three fully occupied business men, who sat almost continuously from day to day through January considering this difficult question. The Committee has reported, and hon. Members will, I hope, consider seriously its recommendations. The Committee came to certain definite conclusions:

(1) That after three years of the existing system of Government subsidies civil aviation had made little or no progress.

I wish to be quite clear, and the Committee wish to be quite clear, that they make no criticism of the three existing companies which have been operating this service. These companies have been doing pioneer work, and, as the figures show, they have been fulfilling a public demand. When I say that the subsidies have not proved successful, it is the system and not the companies that are wrong. I hope that all hon. Members will accept from me the fact that I wish to make no sort of criticism against the three companies.

(2) That subsidies of some kind were necessary for a further period if civil aviation was to continue to exist.

(3) That two conditions were essential if the subsidies were to be of value to the nation:

(a) security of tenure in the matter of subsidies and in the matter of facilities for a period of not less than 10 years;
(b) the subscription of a large sum of private capital, amounting to one million, as an essential condition to be carried out before any subsidy is given.
The Committee also came to the conclusion that as things are now there is not sufficient business for a number of small competing companies, and that all that is happening under the present arrangement is that the State, that is financing in fact all the companies, is merely competing against it self. The only real competition comes from the French, heavily subsidised companies. France is spending 100,000,000 francs a year on civil aviation, and not less than 50,000,000 francs on subsidies. This competition will continue, whether the cross-Channel service is operated by one or more than one British company. It was on that account that the Committee came to the conclusion that one strong company would be better than a number of small companies. The Committee therefore recommended that the State should be prepared to give for the next 10 years a sum of not less than £1,000,000, provided that a corresponding amount is subscribed by the public.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: Is that £1,000,000 a year or a total sum?

Sir S. HOARE: In each case it is a total amount £1,000,000, against £1,000,000 subscribed. Unless there is a big amount of private capital behind the undertaking there will be no development or little development, and little incentive to progress. Without a big amount of private capital the company or companies will continue to exist on their subsidies, and any big development of civil aviation will be out of the question. If private capital is to be subscribed, the Committee thought, there must be a continuance of subsidies for a period. The House does not like subsidies. I do not like subsidies. I would, however, point out that without subsidies it seems likely to be impossible to face the subsidised competition of the French, and to get subscribed the large amount of private capital which I regard as a necessary condition for any big civil aviation development in the future.
Let me remind the House of two further facts. Supposing the broad outlines of this scheme were accepted, the average amount of subsidy would be £100,000 a year, which is exactly one half of the amount of the subsidies we have been giving during the last two years. That is a fact in its favour. Secondly, I ask the House to remember that subsidies, not exactly similar to those I have suggested, but none the less subsidies, are already being given by the Admiralty to certain liners, while the General Post Office for its mails is giving other liners very nearly £500,000 a year. The Government has considered these proposals and I am authorised to state on their behalf that the Air Ministry is prepared to negotiate with any responsible person or persons upon the basis of (1) the subscription of £1,000,000 of private capital; (2) a State subsidy of not more than £1,000,000 to be spread over 10 years; (3) the satisfactory settlement of a number of details connected with the operation of the services, such, for instance, as the use of the machines and pilots in times of national danger. The House will, of course, he kept informed as to any action that may be taken.

Captain BENN: What period does that cover?

Sir S. HOARE: During the next 12 months. The present contracts have still 12 months to run and there is that period for negotiation and consideration.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Will the Handley-Page, the Daimler and the instone Line firms have preference in coming to an arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman as they have already been pioneers and have knowledge and experience of this work?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot say that anyone will have a preference. I can assure the House that the Ministry will certainly take into account the fact that these firms have been pioneers, that they have done excellent work and that it is desirable from every point of view that they should have a part in any arrangement made for the future. The hon. Gentleman may be assured of that. The Air Ministry as I say is prepared to negotiate with anyone who can fulfil the necessary conditions, and if these companies can fulfil the necessary conditions so much the better.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: As one company?

Sir S. HOARE: As one company.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: If they do not succeed in raising the £1,000,000 capital is the Ministry prepared to give the same consideration to any other company?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. In the meanwhile I can assure the House that no action will be taken without the House having an opportunity of discussing the question should it so desire. My personal view is that it is a choice between some such scheme as this—without pledging ourselves to the details of it—and running the risk of civil aviation coming to an end altogether.

AIRSHIPS.

I have taken up a great deal of the time of the House and I apologise for doing so, but before I conclude I wish to say a few sentences on the question of airships. The House will remember the history of airships since the War. In 1920 the Admiralty, in correspondence with the Air Ministry, came to the conclusion that, in view of the financial stringency of the time, it. was not possible to go on with an airship policy. I am glad to say that the question is now being reopened and is at the present moment being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Admiralty are very rightly emphasising the great value which airships may have from the point of view of long distance
naval reconnaisance. The Air Ministry also thinks that airships can be made available as troop carriers and possibly, in the future, as aircraft carriers. From the commercial point of view, it may well be that airships provide the best means at the moment of starting an Imperial air route. Obviously, when the Near East is in a disturbed condition, when Turkey, for instance, and Persia are in the state in which they now are, an airship that can cover great distances without landing has advantages over the aeroplane. On that account, my own view is that, at any rate for the time being, it may be easier to develop the Imperial air route by means of airships than by means of aeroplanes. Anyhow, the two methods need not be. contradictory. It may well be that in the future one will supplement the other, but meanwhile, as I say, I very much hope, although I have put nothing into this year's Estimates for airships, that during the course of the ensuing 12 months we may be able to develop an airship policy, whether it be by means of a commercial undertaking or whether it be by a policy of military research.

I think I have covered most of the important ground, both military and civil. The House has had great patience in listening to a very long speech, and I will end by asking hon. Members, if and when they come to criticise our air policy or our air administration, to remember the very great difficulties with which we have been faced. After all, it is only 20 years since flying became a serious enterprise. It is only five years since the Air Ministry came into being. Since then we have been faced with the task of building up a post-War air service and we have been faced with the task of cutting down our expenditure as a result of the Geddes recommendations, just at the moment when we wished to develop the Service. It is not for me, nor for any member of the Air Force, to say whether or not we have succeeded. I have to ask the House to judge by the facts, by what has happened and by what may happen if we are given a chance. I ask the House not to be continually anxious to dig up the roots of this new organisation. I would ask them not to look back with regret, as people sometimes do, on conditions which have ceased to exist. I ask them to
remember that this is a young service, young in the age of its officers and young in the period of its own lifetime. If hon. Men hers keep these facts in mind, and, without prejudice, judge the Air Force on the record of the past and by the results of what it will achieve in the next few years, I believe that it will stand successfully the highest standard of criticism that can be applied to the older Services or to any of the great Departments of State.

Captain BENN: The Secretary of State for Air will, I am sure, excuse me if, before referring to the very interesting speech which he has made, 1 address some questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty who attends here as he promised to do when it was pointed out that this would be a good occasion on which to discuss the unity of the Air Service and the participation of the Admiralty in air matters. Although these questions will be courteous, it is as well to be perfectly plain, because there are those who think that in the course of the last two or three years there has been a steadily growing agitation—I do not say inspired by the Admiralty, but centring round the Admiralty—to disintegrate the Air Force, and many of those who remember the War and the lessons of the War are strongly opposed to any policy of the kind. First, I wish to ask the First Lord about the news which we have read in the papers concerning what is called the Burney airship scheme. Apparently some negotiations have been going on and, in fact, it was stated by the Civil Lord that. negotiations had been going on in connection with this scheme and that is, notwithstanding the fact that during the War and after the War, the Admiralty displayed very little interest in the air at all. I do not think that it will be denied by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

Commander BELLAIRS: They had not got a proper war service. We all recognised that.

Captain BENN: The past is relevant to the present. At the beginning of the War there were only five small airships. In March, 1915, the first "S.S." appeared, and at the Battle of Jutland there was one seaplane in the air, and
in 1920 they decided they would not proceed with the provision of air material at all. That is the past history of the Admiralty in dealing with the question of the Air Service. Now they are inspired by a desire to be of some assistance and to have a naval air arm, whatever that may mean, and we saw in the "Times" only a couple of months ago that £250,000 is to be found from Admiralty money for the purpose of subsidising what is called the Burney airship scheme. The hon. and gallant Member whose name is associated with this scheme explained at the Air Conference that they went to the Admiralty because the Admiralty had plenty of money, and it was no use going to the Air Ministry because the Air Ministry had not got any money. That is an extraordinary explanation of the distribution of the work of defence between well defined Departments. However, the Admiralty, if this report is to be credited, apparently have £250,000 which they can spend on this service. Is the service in question intended to deal only with war situations? Surely the Admiralty is only concerned with the war side of the question. We know in the Report of the War Cabinet, which was printed as a document and circulated in 1917, the failure of the Zeppelins was recognised, and I take a more picturesque and emphatic description of their work from the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Winston Churchill, who says:
Forty millions of money was squandered by successive Boards in building British Zeppelins, not one of which on any occasion ever rendered any effective fighting service.
That is an extract from the much criticised book of the late First Lord of the Admiralty. If they are of no military value except to transport troops, and possibly as aeroplane carriers, services intimated by the Secretary of State, certainly they cannot become in their war capacity under Admiralty control, because these transportations of troops or quelling of disturbances will always be done in distant-lands, such as Iraq, for instance, where the Admiralty has no access with its ships whatever. If these airships are to be of use, they must be of use in a civilian capacity, and nobody has denied that there are possibilities of useful service for commercial purposes to he rendered by them, but if they are a purely
civilian undertaking, what on earth has the Admiralty to do with it? They would have to use the same aerodromes as exist already to some extent, and the same supply depots for fuel, they would have to buy engines of more or less the same type as the aero-engine, and on the routes which they pursue there would have to be arranged radiating services to go with the long distance of the Zeppelin.
Supposing a Zeppelin goes 1,000 miles without stopping, you must have where it stops a radiating service which would bring the passengers or goods to that spot, and not only that, but between the two stations you must have a stopping train, the Zeppelin being the express. These stopping services and radiating services will have to be supplied by aeroplanes, and not airships at all, and so the plan apparently is that the Admiralty should subsidise a civilian airship, which would duplicate the work and have to work side by side with the Department of the Air Ministry which is concerned with a civil aviation route and supplying all aeroplanes, material, aerodromes, maps, charts, signals, and so on, for that route. If the House examines this in an impartial spirit, I am sure that nobody can say that this is Admiralty work. I express no opinion on the Burney scheme, but whatever merits it may have, it is not a piece of work which properly falls to the Admiralty Department to undertake.
I want now to pass to a word about this question of the unity of the Air Service. Two years ago the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Long, said quite clearly in the House:
I want to make it perfectly clear, for there has been some misunderstanding, that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Admiralty to attempt to depart from the clear and definite policy laid down by the Government……namely, that the Air Ministry is to he an independent Department, and that we should look to them for developments of air policy in the future, for the best kind of air machine, the way in which the men have to be trained, and so on.
Is that statement true to-day? Is it true to-day that the Admiralty accept the existing policy of the Government—that the Air Ministry should be in supreme and unified control of the whole of the Air Service? We all read in the statement of the First Lord a very surprising announcement. He said the Admiralty were training 140 officers and 1,000 men
in anticipation of a decision of His Majesty's Government empowering the Admiralty to man with naval personnel the air arm of the Fleet. I do not think such an amazing statement has ever appeared in an official document before. This House allots money and defines duties to the various Departments and, for the First Lord to announce that he is keeping men in reserve for a purpose which has not been authorised, paying them all money which may not be authorised, anticipating a decision of the Government or of the Imperial Defence Committee which may never be made, and which I hope will, if made, never be ratified by this House, is a most amazing state of affairs. It is very interesting to observe that there are 1,000 men and 140 officers of the Navy suitable for manning the air arm of the Fleet. That is very interesting, because it is not two years since the Air Ministry asked the Admiralty if they could find 100 officers who were willing to come forward and volunteer for air work. When 100 were asked for by the Air Ministry, only nine volunteered, and, of those, two were unfit, while of the remaining seven, four were "axed" out in pursuance of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, so that when you ask for 100 men to perform work which the House has approved there are only nine men, who melt away by being unfit or by being cleared out, but when it is a question of manning the air arm, whatever that may mean, in anticipation of a decision, there are 1,000 men and 140 officers who are to be placed in reserve for this purpose.

Commander BELLAIRS: Surely the hon. and gallant Member sees the difference between permanently leaving the Service and temporarily leaving it?

Captain BENN: I am coming to that. That is to say, you want sailors who do a little flying in their spare time. Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) and others who have worked under the Admiralty—and I have, in a subordinate capacity—will know that that is the naval conception of flying. It is a little thing you do in your spare time; you are a good sailor, and if you have time you be-conk a good airman as well. As a matter of fact, the only basis of air power is for a man to be an airman the whole time,
for his whole life and his whole career. I am going to attempt to justify that. What are the services that are to be rendered? Dealing merely with this claim that the naval arm should be amputated from the parent body, what are the services? They are air fighting, bombing, torpedoing, reconnaissances, and spotting. Spotting requires the closest liaisonbetween the man doing the spotting and the gunner firing at the back, but reconnaissance, bombing and fighting are pure air services, and the amount of connection that is necessary with a ship or the amount of the naval spirit that the men ought to have are of the very smallest. Moreover, if you did cut off the naval air service you would first of all cut off a great number of people serving in it from a general experience of air work, and thereby reduce the number of men who might be qualified to serve in an air staff college, and you would reduce the number of men available for a reserve of pilots, because a man's whole career is spent in flying in connection with the Fleet or in returning to his duties with the. Fleet, instead of a number of men being passed through, taught to fly, and forming in future a reserve of pilots.
I want now to say a word about the speech of the Secretary of State on the Air Estimates in general. He explained to us that we have no Air power standard at all. That was the gist, the summing-up, of the explanation that he gave. He gave the figures of what it would cost to. have a, one-Power Air standard. He did not mention a thing which I myself would have much liked to hear mentioned, namely, whet-her the Government was making any effort to extend the principles of the Washington Treaty to Air armaments. That is the really useful thing to do, to persuade the great Powers of the world to extend to this most dangerous and growing form of offence the same principles that they are prepared to extend to the obsolescent battleship. But if the Secretary of State says that there is no money for expanding the Air Service, I would direct his attention, and that of hon. Members, to the statement in the Geddes Committee Report to the effect that it was necessary to substitute the Air arm for the Navy and the Army in the performance of certain definite and specified duties; that is to say, that the
Air should gradually supersede the Army and Navy in fields of endeavour where it could be appropriately employed. It is obvious that if this it to be done it will never be done with the goodwill either of the Admiralty or the War Office. It is not natural to expect it. No admiral would ever concede that some flying thing could do work better than some floating thing.

Commander BELLAIRS: Why not?

Captain BENN: I do not think it is to be expected—it is trying human nature too high—any more than any cavalry man would ever admit that an aeroplane does most of the work of the cavalry better, more effectively, and more cheaply. It is obvious that we must have a higher authority which can take all three Services and control and co-ordinate the work between them, and that seems to me to be essential if ever you are to get the substitution of more economical, scientific and advanced ways of working for the older Services. It is done in the case of Mesopotamia, where the Air Service has the supreme command, where the ground troops properly come under the control of the Air Marshal Commanding the Forces.
There are other functions, which have not been already allotted, which should be set aside as work definitely to be undertaken by the Air Service, as, for instance, the patrolling of trade routes and the repelling of invasion by sea. That is primarily a work that could be done by the Air Service. The enemy of the ship coming to this country is the submarine, and no one will deny that. the air scout, at some time or another, is far the most dangerous enemy of the submarine. I remember quite well that in the Mediterranean we had old trawlers, going about six knots, armed with one ridiculous little gun, firing a six or 12 pound shot, toiling away, quite unable to check what few submarines there were, whereas the whole Service might have been mapped out and watched by very few seaplanes, or flying boats, or lighter-than-air craft, a scheme which would have made the life of the submarine impossible in those waters. I saw an extract from a diary of a German submarine commander, and it was clear from that diary that the submarines lived in terror of the aircraft. They dared not come to the
surface for fear they might be spotted and bombed. Therefore, I say that the patrolling of trade routes and the repelling of invasion by sea are work which should be laid on the Air Ministry. It must also be remembered that people have to get a long distance away from the nearest enemy aerodrome in the next war, otherwise its existence will be very precarious.
Farther than that, the Air Ministry's work—and I imagine this has already been allotted to it—is the repelling of invasion by air. That is entirely an Air Ministry task. Invasion by air must be met by finding and bombing the munition and other centres of the enemy, the aerodromes, and so on, not by waiting for the aeroplanes to come here. That brings me to another point, namely, that the Air Ministry, or the supreme commander of the Air Force, must have the whole of his material under his hand, and mobile. That is the supreme reason why we should not divide the Service, and get it. under the control of Admirals and Generals all over the place.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Would the lion. and gallant Member like to see the Air Ministry able to take away the whole of the Air arm of the Fleet?

Captain BENN: I am not going to answer what is obviously a military question, hut it. is quite clear that the Supreme Air Commander should be the man who is, in the last resort, in control of all things that fly everywhere. It may be absolutely necessary. I suppose, however, it is easy to be led away into making statements that cannot be justified by a particular instance. It is quite obvious that if you have your air carrier or aircraft with the Fleet he must come under the command of the Admiral of the Fleet for the time being. But what I am speaking about is the need for mobility and power in massing the individual, power to strike at the outbreak of war, and this does depend upon maintaining a unity of command.
6.0 P.M.
All this talk about splitting up the Air Force runs quite contrary to all the lessons which the War taught us. There is nothing new about the suggestion that you should split up the Air Force between the Army and the Navy. In 1912, when the air was first seriously considered from a military point of view,
there was a Committee set up, presided over by General Seely. It is a very singular thing, but it never met after the outbreak of war. Then in 1916, when there had been keen competition for material and personnel between the conflictings arms of the Service, the Derby Committee went into the matter, and again there was the Curzon Air Board and the Cowdray Committee. These pointed out that unless you had unity of control in the Air Service things would go wrong. Finally, the various parties concerned were housed together, and under stress of the experiences of the War the Air Ministry was set up, there was an investigation, and the whole state of affairs was looked into. If the War taught us that it was necessary that the Air Force should be one, why should we in times of peace forget these lessons and proceed to dismember it on account of an agitation which is set on foot? Whether from the Admiralty or wherever else, the effect is the same.
The Air is now recognised as being our first line of defence. That involves a consideration of the element itself, the mechanism employed, and the mentality of those who use that mechanism. The airman should not depend for his career upon the Admiral or the General. He must be single-minded. His qualifications, ambitions, and goal should be one: his reward to serve his country in the air. He cannot have his prospects of advancement jeopardised by being under the control of another Service. Where a man's treasure is there will his heart be also. Just one other word—not at very great length—on civil aviation which is the real place of air supremacy. The Secretary of State spoke of the existence of his 52 squadrons. The Estimate is £17,000,000 or thereabouts, I suppose, the figure given to the House in another place last year. I think the Secretary of State did not lay sufficient emphasis upon civil aviation, even from the military point of view. It may be perfectly true to say that the kind of aircraft produced for civilian flying is not suitable for war use. That may be perfectly true, but it is not true to say that the pilot who is using it. day by day, and constantly flying his aircraft, is not an excellent pilot for war work, even if it is right to say that the type of machine he flies is not a suitable type for military purposes. That is not the question. The question is, have we
the factories and the material which can produce in time of need—places regularly and properly designed? That is entirely a matter for the Air Ministry, and no amount of designing or ability will be useful unless you have the factory and the men and the potential output. Therefore, I say, that to consider civil aviation is not needed, though useful in any other case, seems not to the point, for it is a great source of strength even from the military standpoint.
In looking at these Estimates, although they are figures of last year, it is very disappointing to find that reductions are made in the civilian branches. There is a head of expenditure which concerns civil aviation. The Estimates of the aircraft factory, I know, have been rearranged. As I make out, both the director of civil aviation, the meteorological department and the civil aviation department have all suffered reductions. I note that on page 71 of the Estimate. It looks like a reduction of between £300,000 and £400,000. The result of our effort to stimulate civil aviation—I do not know that we have any recorded results as to research—are not very satisfactory. In 1920 there were 240 airworthy craft. In 1921 there were only 157, and in 1922 there were only 97. I do not know what the figure now is, but I imagine that it is much the same, or perhaps even lower. If you take the number of miles flown; we find that in the three years May, 1919, till March, 1922, which are the latest figures, that civil aircraft flew two million miles, one internally and one externally; while, on the other hand, if you look at France—I am only dealing with the civil, and not the military point of view—in 1921 there were 1,400,000, or roughly a million and a half miles flown. I saw a statement in the newspaper at Christmas with reference to civil aviation in France, and it stated that in 1922 9,000,000 miles were flown in France. I think the number of miles is a good test as to progress.
In America. in the report of which I am speaking—and it is now nearly a year old—in the six months specified the postal service machines flew 1,000,029 miles. The figures of our own civilian flying compare very unfavourably with these. After three years, as I make out, we are send-
ing out about 300,000 air mails. In America, during the six months of which I have spoken, 25,000,000 letters were sent by air mail. Of course, the long distances there have to be taken into account, but I do not think there is a great deal of satisfaction to be gained. I think the problem is somehow to root the flying habit in the people of this country and make civil aviation flourish. It seems necessary to do it. We have tried subsidies. We gave £200,000 of the taxpayers money as against France's 43,000,000 francs of total expenditure. We are paying towards civil aviation this year £300,000 against a total French expenditure last year of 147,000,000 francs. I do not know whether these methods are the right methods, but the Secretary of State in his interesting speech told us that they are eliminating from this Vote all these subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman, however, outlined a very interesting scheme for unifying the subsidies to flying companies. By some such methods as this I am convinced you must proceed if you are to maintain security, and a real and permanent air supremacy.
This is not primarily a military problem at all. There are military problems in it, but they are all subsidiary—gunnery, bombing, and so on—these, so far as the air is concerned, are in an absolutely elementary stage. All these problems are not unimportant by any means, but the important problem is of getting a potential output of machines and of having a nation that really is used to the air. Air may be said to have been subdued, but not conquered, and the problems that have to be faced are not military problems; they are the problems of research and so on, problems that might be solved to the very great profit of civilian flying if we were to establish it and had the means to do it.
What are some of these problems Fuel, for instance, engines, and navigation. I put these three points in that way. I see that General Salmond at the Air Conference said that petrol was costing £25 a ton; crude oil was only £4 a ton. And supposing an engine is invented—and I believe we are in prospect of it—which uses crude oil, and we could pay for the oil £4 instead of £25, what an enormous difference it would make to the capacity for aviation! The engines, again, which use this fuel—I do not know whether they
are, engines of high power-which are required—but I think General Branker said at the same conference that 350 horsepower was about the power required. As to navigation, can it really be said that we have many people, good pilots, who are really up in all sorts of weather? Clouds are bad enough. Fogs are worse. Even so, can we say that the military pilot has experience compared with the experience of the civilian pilot; that he has the amount of confidence that enables him to fly even through a fog—has the same amount of confidence as a man who makes the, lame journey every day? It is only by that constant flying, this hundreds and thousands of miles of flying, that you do develop the type of man not afraid of adverse and affrighting conditions of atmosphere.
Therefore, I say, that the real problem for the Air Ministry is how to teach the people of this country to regard the element, that is the air, as as much their element as the sea now is. In the old days it is not denied that the British Navy was founded upon the mercantile marine. We were driven to sea because we lived in an island. There was the "urge." .Unfortunately, there is no such "urge" as regards the air. The nations of the world. are in the same position. There is no special privilege to be enjoyed or special handicap to be avoided, whichever you like to call it. It is of this problem I am speaking, and not of it as it will stand two, three, or four years hence, but I wish to take the long view of this problem. I am convinced that the Air Minister who directed his attention to a solution, or a partial solution, of it might bring a blessing to the world, and certainly set up a source of great power to this country.

Major-General Sir F. SYKES: I am proud in speaking for the first time in this House to do so on the great question of national and Imperial defence. As I see it the problem of a sound defensive air system is insolubly linked up with those two other great groups of problems—international affairs and social reform. I start from the basis that, as we all know, this country does not want war. We would do almost anything to ensure peace. Our men and women in field, factory, and home won the War, and in winning it hoped that they were winning the end of war. We all, I think,
feel intensely that the greatest gift to all classes and of all countries would be the elimination of war. If war cannot be eliminated root and branch, we hope that either by the League of Nations, or some other machinery, there may be a definite and general reduction of armaments. At all events, I think our Navy and Army Estimates have given a good lead in the direction of a definite reduction of armaments in this country. Personally, I think that the lead which the Navy has given is not too small, and I disagree with the First Lord of the Admiralty when he says that possibly next year it will not be so mach reduced. I hope it will, and I feel sure it will and must, be further reduced.
We are a practical nation. Apparently wars have not yet ceased, and it is obvious that we should still have, on the lowest possible minimum scale, a Navy, Army, and Air Force.
It, seems to me that the defence of our Empire is now even more complicated than hitherto. It is greatly complicated by the factor that we have to save every possible penny, and the difficult problem which the air presents. We cannot carry on our defence on the old methods of expenditure and organisation. We must remodel our system. Air development entails a radical rearrangement. In my view the safety of the, Empire now rests not upon one, of three Services—I think the words, "First line," are now out of date—but entirely upon the corporate cooperation of the three Services in one. Our primary requirements in the matter of defence are the laying down of a sane, safe, economieal, long-dated policy. This is the only way in which any department or business can operate economically and efficiently. That, is, it is a strategically based policy whirl, the three Services or, as I prefer to call it, the unified defensive Service most requires.
I am not one of those who think that the necessity for a Navy and an Army will shortly cease, but I do want to say that the air opens out a new phase, and a new sphere of operations in war. I think that the air will gradually play a preponderating rôle in the matter of defence, going far in peace to help in assisting to avoid conflict as much Ls to ensure victory when war comes. The Imperial Flying Services at the end of the War were the finest in the world.
We now know that we no longer retain that lead, and I am quite sure the whole House will agree that at this juncture a misguided air policy would be almost a national disaster for the future. The question involves itself into obtaining some definite correlation on a co-operation, not competing, basis of the Navy, Army and the Air. First of all, we should have one policy. I think, secondly, there is great room for the correlation of the various Services within the three arms in order to secure greater economy and greater efficiency. I have never been able. to understand why in the different fighting departments there should be separate chaplains, doctors, clothing, pay, and supply services for each arm instead of there. being one service for the three. At present each Service says it must have its own. I realise the difficulties, especially the personal ones, bet I think the time has come to face them on practical business-like lines.
The question of Treasury control over the finances of the three Services to my mind is a matter also which requires readjusting. The logical conclusion, as I see it, of all this is that there should be unity of control for the three Services. I do not say that we can definitely and very soon set up that control, but I do think that there are many steps which should be steadily taken one by one, tried and developed. They should all tend in that direction. There is one point which requires very careful improvement before such a logical conclusion is arrived at, and that is that the senior staffs of the three Services want. a much greater degree of education in joint-Service work than they have at the present time. I am entirely against. working in water-tight compartments, whether it be in regard to education or any other service. Therefore, although I welcome the new Staff College which the Secretary of State has mentioned as just coming into being in regard to the Air Force, I think it is of greater importance that there should be a unified joint Staff College for the senior officers of the three Services.
There are three main factors in the air problem. First, long range, independent action and home defence. Secondly, there should be tactical units working with the Navy and the Army; and, thirdly, there should be overseas air communications and reserve force. I
think that these three problems or factors in the problem should be very carefully weighed in their various ratios within the air itself and concurrently with the air problem as a whole being considered in regard to the Army and Navy. We all know that the first is of the greatest importance from the war point of view. We know that in the matter of the air, even more than in the matter of any other form of defence, attack is not. only the best but almost the only form of defence. And we shall certainly be in a very dangerous position if we do not develop and organise this Service on a really sound, scientific, concentrated and not dispersed basis.
The second point, about which there has been so much controversy, is that of the actual units with the Army and Navy, and, again, this requires consideration as a whole and not in detail. The Admiralty have a very strong case in this matter and almost the same might be said of the Army. As I understand it, the Admiralty think that reconnaissance machines are just as much a necessity to ships as their own look-outs, and that spotting, and torpedo carriers are as integral and necessary a part of the Fleet as destroyers. The Army also think that reconnaissance machines and observation for artillery machines are also a necessity for day in and day out work and that they must have them as an integral part of the Army. If the Navy claims are admitted the Army will have sooner or later to be met.
The Air arguments are also very strong. The Air argument is that the whole dominion of the air should come under their purview, that the old system of naval and military wings is retrograde, checks progress and only sets up competition, and also that a reversion to the old system would make abortive its true independent strategic action. As I see the question, I think we ought to concentrate, first of all, upon the necessity for the independent arm. If we could ensure sufficient strength of that we ought to give very sympathetic hearing to the Admiralty and War Office views on this matter. Again. I do not think that anyone should dogmatise on the subject, but the new Committee should be able to have the best possible opportunity of really studying the question as a whole and deciding the matter upon its merits. We must remember, however, that in this
question the only way in which air attack can be met is by the air, and that to ensure the air having sufficient power to act in that way it requires every possible unit which it can lay its hands upon, of a suitable form, to carry out that work. Another point is that, long before the Navy or the Army can be ready to act in the event of war, the Air will be raining blows upon the opposing country, far beyond Army or Navy reach, so much so that it may be impossible for them to start operations at all. If the Air Force of one country is successful, the Kavy and Army functions will be very much reduced; but if it is unsuccessful, the Navy and Army will be much hampered in their operations. It is quite impossible to defend areas from the ground.
One danger is that if the Navy and the Army get their own tactical units there might be a desire in some quarters to dispense with the development of independent long-range air action, and there might be a tendency for that independent action to be reduced to very little or nothing. It is in regard to such independent action that we should concentrate primarily. There is a deep-rooted feeling on the part of the Air that the proposals of the other two Services are the thin end of the wedge to the assimilation of the balk of the Service Air activities, and their opinion is that this would be a very dangerous step to take from the point of view of Air progress and from the point of view of defence efficiency as a whole. But the whole of this question it will be quite possible. to deal with if it is taken up by the new Committee which is about to sit. One word of warning about this new Committee. In my opinion, it can only operate with real success if it is an independent and very strong Committee. We know that there are points to be dealt with, I hardly know quite the right word to use, but each Department. will naturally and obviously fight for its own hand, and unless the Committee is very strong it will be quite unable to cope with the real necessity of breaking down the barriers between the three Services and. bringing them together.
I should also like to mention the question of experiments, research and design, and also that of the commercial air fleet. I feel that experiments want very much
more pushing than they get at present, much more energy to be put into them. There is a great deal which can be done in the experimental field—a great deal which is obviously waiting to be tackled. ft is very important that experiment and research, which is really the basis of all progress, should be tackled with a very strong hand. Then there is the question of the actual flying carried out. The only way that Air progress can be achieved is by flying, and with your experiments you want to carry out the greatest amount of practical useful flying. I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question on this point of practical flying. What is the number of officers who flew as pilots during the year ending 31st March, 1922, the average number of hours flown by the officers during that period, and also what is the percentage of those officers to the total numbers in the Air Force? I think any tendency not to push flying as much as possible must be guarded against very stringently. Again, in regard to the commercial aspect., the great value of commercial flying lies not only in the reserve powers of the industry, and in the experiments which it helps to foster, but also in the training, utility and experience of pilots and other personnel involved. That is a very real factor in the whole question. Numbers at present are obviously very small, but that is no reason why a small beginning should not be made at once. We heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he was already starting a naval base at Singapore. I hope the Air Minister will work in with that scheme, because it is not only from the air point of view of great. value to the Service, but also I think it will be of great value in assisting a commercial air route to Australia.
The First Lord also mentioned the visit of naval units to different parts of the world. If Singapore were established as a naval basis, it would do a great deal to help that. It is not possible, unfortunately, this year for the Dominions Prime Ministers to come over by air to the Imperial Conference; but I feel it is a matter of great urgency that we should try to set, our own home defence house in order and have a really sound workable scheme to put before them in order to obtain their mutual co-operation in an Imperial scheme when they arrive. If that is done, I hope that in a few years the
Dominion Prime Ministers will be able to come very frequently to this country or our Prime Minister will be able to go to their country in order to confer with them on current questions of Imperial importance.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I should like to congratulate very sincerely my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the. Hallam Division of Sheffield (Sir F. Sykes) on what was, not only a most interesting maiden speech, but something very much more— a valuable contribution to a vitally important subject. I rose to answer two questions addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain W. Benn), and I shall endeavour to answer them purely as questions of fact without going into the merits of the controversy, which would be far better dealt with by the authoritative consideration of the Committee which has been appointed. The first question was in regard to the Burney airship scheme. My hon. and gallant Friend is undoubtedly under a certain misapprehension, possibly due to things he may have seen in the Press or even to utterances of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney). The Committee of Imperial Defence of the Cabinet set up a Sub-Committee to consider whether airships had any defence value. That Sub-Committee took the view, which was summarised very clearly by the Secretary of State, that they had a value in more than one direction. One was for carrying troops; another was to carry aeroplanes; the third, and the only one which affected the Admiralty, was that these big airships, owing to their great range and power to remain in the air for weeks, might be of great value in patrolling large open spaces of ocean. Having come to this conclusion, the Committee of Imperial Defence asked the Admiralty to put the more definite question whether such a service was worth paying for, and the Admiralty, coming to the conclusion that that form of reconnaissance might he of great value to the Admiralty in economising the work of its light cruisers, decided that it was well worth paying for. The further question as to who should pay for and who should control that service is, obviously, just one of those questions which can only be decided
by the Committee which is investigating the relations of the three Services. I take it, it would not be of any real advantage to the House, therefore, to discuss it.
The second question which the hon. and gallant Member asked referred to the 1,000 men and 140 officers who have not been discharged from the Navy pending the decision on the question of the control of the personnel who are to do the air work with the fighting fleet. I must remind the House that that. personnel will have to be considerably enlarged during the coming year in view of the fact that three large aircraft carriers will then be completed. Consequently there will be a considerable expansion in that. service. In view of the fact that the late Cabinet had undertaken to appoint a Committee, whose decision might be expected either before the end of the financial year or very shortly after, it surely would have been the height of umwisdom and more than unwisdom, of cruelty, to dismiss large numbers of men from the naval service who might be wanted within a few weeks of the opening of the new financial year. More than that, it was not a question of economy, because the compensation required for that number of officers and men on dismissal would have amounted to something not far from £100,000. Therefore, without prejudicing in any way the decision either in favour of the Admiralty or of the Air Ministry, we came to the conclusion that the wisest course was to keep these men on for the few weeks—the comparatively short time which was likely to elapse before the actual decision was given.

Captain W. BENN: What are the men doing now'? Have they any duties? Did the Cabinet authorise their continuance on air duties?

Mr. AMERY: Of course, this action was approved both by the Treasury and the Cabinet. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the reduction in the personnel of the Fleet has reached such a. point that if for a few weeks a certain number of extra men are spared to the Admiralty, there is plenty of work for them to do. They are not idle men kicking their heels about. The men who would actually be used for the air work are not necessarily the same men who would be discharged. and if the discharge
is postponed for a short time, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend there is no question of these thousand men kicking their heels waiting for work.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE FORCES (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
That, pending the consideration as to the advisability or otherwise of the complete co-operation and correlation of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, this House is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken to eliminate unnecessary expenditure consequent upon duplication of staffs, or the elaboration of various and competitive plans dealing with the problems of air defence over land and sea.
I have listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Hallam Division (Sir F. Sykes) with a great deal of interest, and I, too, want to compliment him on it. He began by voicing the mind of a good many hon. Members on these benches when he said that people were tired of war, that they did not want war and that they wanted to seek some way of avoiding it. That is the spirit in which we approach these Estimates, just as it is the spirit in which we approach both the Navy and the Army Estimates. When the First Lord of the Admiralty, yesterday, was presenting the Navy Estimates, he was able to take credit for a reduction in expenditure, and I take it that to-morrow, when the Secretary of State for War presents the Army Estimates, he also will take credit for a reduction in expenditure. Unfortunately, to night, the Air Minister is not in that position, and, listening carefully to his speech, one did not get the impression that he was particularly regretful that he was not in a position to announce to the House a reduction of expenditure in regard to the Air Services. I am prepared to agree thus far with the right hon. Gentleman, that the Air Service is in its infancy, and there is every likelihood of its growing; and, perhaps, that may be a justification of the Government in not being anxious at this time to reduce expenditure upon it.
To-night, however, as it seems to me, we ought to consider the question which way the Air Service is likely to grow,
and there are two aspects of it that I should like to put before the House, the one dealing with the question of increase of expenditure, and the other dealing with the question of policy. In my opinion, while the question of increased expenditure is an important one, the question of policy is of equal importance, and so for a few minutes I want to look at the question of policy. One rather anticipated that the Debate would centre upon the question whether the Navy is to have control of its own Air Service, whether the Army is to have control of its own Air Service, and, whether the Air Ministry is to control the Air Services, except those of the Army and the Navy. It really seems to me to become a question whether each one of these three Services is to be independent of the others. One noticed, on the Navy Estimates, several Amendments to the effect that the sole control of and responsibility for the Air arm of the Royal Navy should be vested in the Admiralty; and Amendments to the Air Estimates have been put down almost to the same effect.
We take altogether a different course from that suggested in the Amendments to the Navy Estimates. We believe that, instead of in-dependence, there ought to he co-operation of all the three Services. We believe that there should be no competition between them, and we suggest co-operation, not only in the interests of economy, but also in the interests of efficiency. We believe that. the machinery for co-operation already exists in the Committee of Imperial Defence. I want to make it clear that one is not suggesting that the Navy should not have a limited number of aeroplanes, so as to provide its own personnel. We quite recognise that a naval airman will be better to have, not only the habit of the air, hut also the habit of the sea. Our trouble with the Admiralty is that it thinks only in terms of one big fleet fighting another big fleet. I am not going to suggest, either, that the Army should not have a limited number of aeroplanes in which to train its own personnel to work as the eyes of the Army, but we feel that here, again, the trouble is that the War Office thinks in terms of an immense Continental army, and thinks of war as a business of one big army going to fight another. One rather regrets to say one feels that the Air
Ministry seems to be thinking too much in terms of mass bombing. To many of us the most important question appears in be the question of trade routes and economic warfare.
One wants rather to emphasise the dual function of the Air Ministry. One knows that it. is called upon to deal with a new problem, but one wants to emphasise that that new problem is civilian as well as military and naval. It involves not only naval defence, but also the development of flight as a factor in commerce and general intercourse between nations. Even from a purely defence point of view, the aim of the Air Ministry should be to build up, not only an Air Force capable of defending the British Empire, but—and this is vastly the more important—to create something having the same relation to that force which the Mercantile Marine has to the Royal Navy. We believe this to be undoubtedly the best and the cheapest method of training a large number of men to fly and to acquire the habit of the air. A gentleman with whom I was discussing this question told me he believed that 90 per cent. of the requisite training—I am not going to pin myself to that figure, but he gave it as one who had a thorough knowledge of the question—he believed that 90 per cent. of the requisite training could be given to the men without. sending them up in battle, by encouraging civil aviation.
I do not know whether the Air Minister noticed an article written by Robert Blatchford in the last issue of the "Sunday Chronicle." I have never agreed with Robert Blatchford since, in the early days, he threw over his Socialism, but with much of this article one did agree. I do not know whether all the Members of the House were favoured by having the "Sunday Chronicle" sent to them, but many of us on this side were so favoured. I should like to read just a word or two from that. article. It says:
There is no need to build a very large war fleet of aeroplanes, nor to train a huge army of pilots.
I should rather like to emphasise this, because one got the impression from the Air Minister's speech that he was thinking only of military, and not of civil aeroplanes. The article goes on:
The best way is that advocated in Riders of the Air ' "—
a book that has been written on the question, in which, as we are told in the article, the author says:
There is, surely, but one way, and Canada has adopted it. The military defence must be based upon civil aviation. Civil aircraft must be constructed with the necessary foresight to make the machines convertible at an hour's notice into military ones, and the personnel must be so trained as to make the men instantly ready for war. Civil aviation must he encouraged and developed as a great national asset.
In dealing with the question of civil aviation, the Minister seemed to lead one to believe that, unless a company was prepared to put clown sufficient capital to establish this civil air service, there was no prospect of our having a civil air service, and he further gave the impression that the best. way to form this civil company was by subsidising it. We are strongly opposed to any subsidies to private companies. We believe that, rather than subsidise a private company, much the better way is for the Government. to face the, question, nationalise the air service, and fly the machines themselves.
There is one other question to which I want to refer, namely, the question of research. The Minister, when dealing with the question of research, seemed to treat it in a way that one did not like. He said that on the question of research they were dealing with the control of aircraft at low speeds, the, use of crude oil, and with gliding. We want to suggest to the Minister that, there is a larger field for research than he has mentioned to-night, for the large field in regard to defensive methods other than fighting in the air remains unexplored. The Minister and those connected with the Air Service seem to have the impression that all that can be done and thought about is fighting in the air. We believe that research ought to take the line of trying to find out some other method of defence. No one can tell yet, because the whole field is unexplored, what. defensive method might be found out other than fighting by aeroplanes in the air. We are bound to confess that, in our present state of ignorance, it is difficult to frame an adequate air policy.
With regard to increase of expenditure on the Air Service, we wish that, when the Geddes axe was applied so strongly and firmly to the Navy and Army, it had also been applied, even though
gently, to the Air Service, because, while the Government have been able to save. by decreasing expenditure on the Army and Navy, they have to come here and acknowledge an increase of expenditure on the Air Service. It seems as though we have been saving on the swings and losing on the roundabouts. Even if it had not been possible for the Air Ministry to cut down expenditure, one thinks it might have been possible, at a time like this, for them not to increase expenditure. because, if one understood the Minister aright, the increase is largely due to the fact that 15 new squadrons are to be formed. If those 15 new squadrons had not had to be formed, there would have been no need to increase the expenditure on the Air Service. We were told that those 15 new squadrons were formed for the purpose of home defence, but, if it. were merely a question of home defence, I suggest that the better way would have been to have brought home the eight squadrons that are in the Middle East, instead of spending money upon new squadrons. That would have been far better than using them to bomb Arabs who do not pay their rates.

Sir S. HOARE: We do not do that.

Mr. BATEY: I know that that has been denied in the House, but one also knows that Sir Percival Phillips still sticks to it., that his statement. is true, and one has never seen any contradiction made by the Air Ministry in the "Daily Mail."

Sir S. HOARE: I am sorry to interrupt the. hon. Member, but I do not think he could have been in the House when, on several occasions during this Session, I have made a definite denial of those charges. I think he will agree with me that the place to make a denial is this Chamber rather than the "Daily Mail."

7.0 P.M.

Mr. BATEY: I quite agree that the Air Minster is right in saying that this is the proper place to make a denial. One cannot, however, forget this fact, that the statement was made in the "Daily Mail "and in a hook published by Sir Percival Phillips. Then the denial was given in this House, after which the statement was repeated by Sir Percival Phillips, who said it was true. I should be extremely pleased to accept the statement of the Air Minister that it is not true, because if such a thing has been done, we had
better have no aeroplanes at all. If we simply have aeroplanes to collect rates, or to bomb Arabs who do not pay their rates, or to kill the mothers-in-law of Arabs, then it is far better to have no aeroplanes at all than to use them for that purpose.
One has noticed a rather great clamour in the Press for more aeroplanes, and for a greater and bigger Air Service than we have at present. I was surprised to read in a Sunday paper, last Sunday—it is a paper one regards as being always a moderate and intelligent sort of journal—this statement. The writer was dealing with an announcement that had been made by the Air Ministry, and he said:
The Air Ministry announce that our Air Force is to be increased by fifteen squadrons. We only wish this Government were big enough to propose an increase of fifty squadrons. Even that would leave us seriously inferior to our nearest neighbours. As a standard, this country ought to set before itself air equality with the determination to achieve and maintain it at any price. The price would be low by comparison with the value of the object.
The writer goes further, and says:
Our minimum, however low, ought to be equal to the minimum of any other nation in Europe.
To-night, when the Air Minister was speaking, I rather had the impression that he was telling us that we had only 371 machines against France's 1,260 machines, and that there was in the Minister's mind the thought that we should be justified in increasing the number of machines so as to get on a level with France. When he was making that statement, this thought went through my mind Have we an alliance with France? We have been told here, again and again, when we have been discussing the Ruhr question, that we still have an alliance with France. If we have an alliance, what is going to he the value of it? Does it mean that it is to have no value either so far as the Navy, the Army or the Air Force is concerned? If France and this country are in alliance, surely in one Department we ought to be justified in being much bigger than France is. We used to be told that Germany was building a big navy, and that it was essential for this country to build and maintain a big Navy in order to be in a position to fight her. It is to be hoped we are not going into that old bad policy again, and that, because
France has more aeroplanes than we have, say we shall build a sufficient number of aeroplanes to get on a level with her. I hope we are not going to build a huge fleet of aeroplanes simply because some other nation is foolish enough to do it.

Mr. ROSE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so on general grounds, as well as on a particular principle. I am emboldened to think that what he has said, and what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) has said, conveys my sense of general defence policy. Frankly, I would like to see the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Service made a Ministry of Defence. We should destroy a few traditions, I dare-say, but they would only be bureaucratic; they would be the traditions of Whitehall which are not worth perpetuating. I do not think that destroying the Admiralty, and making it a part of the Ministry of Defence, would destroy any traditions, such as those of Trafalgar or Camper-down. I am sure that eliminating the War office, as such, would not obliterate memories so glorious as those of Minden or Albuera. The only traditions that would suffer at all are those which we can very well afford to do without. There is one other aspect of this Air stunt—I am afraid it is an Air stunt. We have been told to-night something about a scheme which has been propounded by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney). We have not been told exactly what that scheme is. It is this. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge proposes to build 12 air liners, to carry 400 first class and 400 second class passengers, and 44 tons of baggage. He suggests that 16 of these aerial liners can be built at the price of one battleship.
Just look at this proposition for a minute. If there are 800 passengers, I presume the hon. and gallant Gentleman will want a crew of at least 200, and then I am afraid the ship will be a bit short. handed. That makes a thousand people. A thousand average people, provided you do not allow them any more personal luggage than a set of pyjamas and a tooth brush apiece, will weigh 65 tons, in addition to the 44 tons of baggage. I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentle-
man is going to build the ship, but, I presume he will have to have a cabin of some sort, and that he is not going to hang the people up on clothes lines and peg them there. They will want some place to lie down and some bedding. I suppose the airship will want some engines. Suppose you add 50 tons for the engines, because we should remember that it is a very enormous thing the engines will have to propel, there you will have 200 tons, to begin with. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has worked out his quantities at all, or if he has any designs prepared, because I should like to see them, if they are not too sacred or too valuable.
It, seems to me that the whole bulk of his ship is going to be about 1,000 tons. It is an ascertained fact that the displacement of 100 square inches of air will put into equilibrium, on the surface of the ground, 31 grains. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can work all this out. I am not trying to work it out accurately, but I am just jumping roughly at round figures. I apprehend that he will want at least, to be safe, 35,000,000 cubic feet of atmospheric displacement. Perhaps he can do it with a little bit less: I do not know. It seems to me that the ship will have to be about three-quarters of a mile long, and at least 100 or 120 feet in diameter. I do not think lie can do it. I do not think there are any appliances or materials that we know of at present that will bring about a result like this, however those materials be manipulated. It is a queer suggestion which underlies all this sort of talk about building fleets of airships so much more cheaply than you can build battleships; but think of the difference. You spend from six to nine million pounds—I do not know how much the current price is of a capital ship. When you have built it, it is quite strong enough and quite self-reliant enough to be left out all night in the rain. It does not take any harm if the wind gets up in the night. You cannot leave a monster airship out all night, because she safest when up in the air, and utterly unsafe if out in the open air, and pegged down at either end or both ends. Therefore, you have to build aerodromes. If you are going to have 12 of these ship running, you would always have two at home under repair in case of war breaking out, and somebody coming running after these
things with bombing appliances. You will want some place to keep them in. Therefore, instead of their costing one-sixteenth of the price of a battleship, they would cost about four times as much in the long run.
That seems to me to put the whole thing out of court. It is all very well for these megalomaniacs to paint glorious visions of the wonderful things they can do. They cannot do this sort of thing. It is absolutely against the law. I am not referring to any Statute law. The hon. and gallant. Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney) had better start a universal league, to see if he cannot prevail upon a higher authority to repeal the law of gravitation. I am reminded of a story told me by an hon. and gallant Friend, who said I could use it. He said that in his regiment there was a sergeant who was passing his musketry examination. The examiner asked him to indicate the forces which operated one way or the other upon a bullet when it left the muzzle of the rifle. The sergeant mentioned atmospheric pressure and initial velocity, and some other things. The examiner said, "Yes that is all right but what about the force of gravity?" "Well, Sir," he replied, "that was abolished in the last Army Order." It would be a very excellent thing if we could abolish that law.
Personally, I do not believe that the life of an airship is worth talking about, and certainly not worth spending money upon. I do not believe that civil aviation has more than very limited potentialities. I believe, it may he made a luxurious and costly mode of travel for a very few rich people. I do not believe it will be able to he brought into use for general transport. You may do something with it for meals but not a great deal. The unfortunate fact is that there is only one way to resist the force of gravity and that is by the exercise of prodigious and unremitting centrifugal force. It is not done anywhere in nature in any other way than that. It seems to me the heavier you makes these things the more force you have to call in, and the more force you call in the more weight you are going to have. While I believe the aeroplane has little or only a very limited future, the whole of its potentialities are warlike. It is going to be an important arm of the
Services. It, is going to form alike defence and attack. That is why I suggest., with all deference to the experts and speaking just from the experience of an operative engineer that aeroplanes of limited size lend themselves particularly to what we know as mass production, and the secret of all mass production is accurate gauging and absolute standardisation, and I view with the greatest alarm a number of aeroplane engineers making any sort of things they like, standardising against each other and against us.
I want to know why that Farnborough factory cannot be more fully developed. You are not getting out of it what you might get. It was a well-equipped place until you formed the Air Ministry—I do not know what the Air Ministry has done with it—but you can do a great deal there, and what you must determine is type more than anything else. Then you must standardise and see that no one standardises against you. Most of us on this side of the House believe that private enterprise in munitions of war of all sorts and kinds should cease as soon as we can cause them to cease. We do not believe in individuals having the right and the privilege of making murder mechanism to sell to anyone they like in any part of the world, and we believe one of the first steps towards possible peace in the world is to stop this sort of thing, and for that reason we urge that. the defence of this country, in so far as it needs mechanism and in so far as it needs munitions and death-dealing apparatus of any sort or kind, should, as far as possible, be done under Government auspices. That is a thing I have said in respect to another Service a good many times in this House, but it seems to me it. is always worth repeating, because it embodies a very great principle. It is no use talking about world peace, while there are influences at work which make peace impossible. Yon can have peace in the world or you can have armament rings. Which would you like? You cannot have both, and you will never have peace as long as you let people make things of this kind and sell them to whoever they like in any part of the world, as long as you connive in the export or the import of contrivances for death and destruction. Just as long as you do that you are making peace utterly impossible from one end of the world to the other.

Lord HUGH CECIL: The interesting speeches we have heard from the Mover and Seconder are open to this criticism, that they have very little to do with the Amendment. We heard a great deal about the physical laws of the world from the Seconder, and a good deal about the importance of peace from both, but we heard almost nothing, I think, about correlation, co-operation, duplication and all the other impressive words which appear in the Amendment. What made the speeches still more unusual in Parliamentary form was that, on the subject of civil aviation, they were diametrically opposed to one another in opinion. I should think it is almost the first time in this House we have had an Amendment moved and seconded in speeches which have little or nothing to do with the Amendment but were contradictory of one another. I desire rather to address my observations to the original Motion that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. That, of course, is the form by which the first step is taken to carrying our Estimates for the year. In the very interesting and instructive statement with which the Secretary of State opened the discussion he gave us a great deal of information, but naturally, and probably quite rightly, he did not deal with the ultimate purpose of the preparations for what he called home defence for which provision is to be made in the Estimates. It is clear, of course, from his lucid statement that there are two great sides to the activity of the Air Force. There is its function in respect to the non-European Empire, which may be almost called the function of a police force, or at any rate the function of fighting against non-civilised people, and there is the function of taking part, if such a calamity again happened to us, in a great European war.
When these Estimates were considered last year I pointed out, what still seems to me important, though I do not think anyone supported my criticism on that occasion, and probably no one will support it on this, that it is rather difficult to understand why, if you cannot. make effectual provision for taking part in a European war, you are making a provision which is confessedly less than effectual. I can understand saying the danger is so great that we must accept the considerable financial burden involved, and set up a great Air Force com-
monsurate with the other great air forces of European countries, or I can understand saying we cannot at present afford to do that and therefore we will virtually leave home defence to slide. But I find it difficult to understand why we try to tread a middle path between those two courses and have preparation which is sufficiently large to be costly and not sufficiently large to be efficient. However, if my right hon. Friend thinks it indiscreet to reply, I shall not complain. If he does not he. will no doubt. say a word about it later on.
There is one observation which stems to me worth mentioning on the question of home defence. I gather it is the opinion of all who are skilled in these matters that, broadly speaking, and guarding oneself against stating the matte too absolutely, the aeroplane is not a. formidable defensive weapon. You cannot rely upon aeroplanes to defend the shores or the metropolis of this country against hostile aeroplanes, and accordingly it is said the offensive is the only defensive. That is to say, I suppose, the danger of retaliation is the only deterrent for attack. If that is so, it seems to follow that the measure- of our necessary Air Force is to he gauged rather by the harm it can do to a possible enemy than by simply comparing it with the force that that enemy can bring against us. It is clear that if all you can do by way of defence is to attack someone else, the important consideration is, how much mischief you can do that somebody and what force is necessary to do that mischief It does not really matter how disproportionately great is the force which is going to do mischief to you, because your only remedy is to do mischief to the attacking country. That seems rather to put out of court. comparisons with one Power, or two Powers, or the like. The problem is rather a different one in character and in kind from the problem of naval defence, and what one ought really to consider, however dreadful such considiration may be, is whether the Air Force is strong enough to inflict serious and crippling damage. upon any country which it may be our misfortune to be at war with. My right hon. Friend said none of us dream of anything approaching war with France at present. That being so, and it being clear that other
nations in Europe, who are near and formidable from an air point of view, are all very exhausted, and unlikely to commence hostilities, I hold the opinion that the present duty of the Air Ministry is to study severe economy and to spend as little money as possible on anything except what is necessary and useful for the Imperial part of their functions.
At the same time, I hope the integrity and the homogeneity of the Air Force will be maintained. I know there is now a very important movement, how far extending to the Ministry we cannot tell, of course, but very important outside, pressing to reverse the policy undertaken when the Air Force was constituted, and to set up military and naval air arms, which would undertake the ancillary duties for the Navy and the Army which are now performed by the Air Force. As far as the problem of co-operation between the three great Services goes, I am entirely in agreement with what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend in that very interesting maiden speech which he delivered so much to our satisfaction and admiration in the earlier part of the discussion. I quite agree with him that the real solution of the problem is in some general co-ordination in the whole defence of the country of the three great Services, and that, whether in a Ministry of Defence or perhaps in some common general staff or by some other similar method, it may perhaps be found possible to overcome all the difficulties which arise out of rivalries or antagonisms between the Services. But pending some such solution and the decision of the great question by the proper authorities—and I am inclined to think we are not likely to see a Ministry of Defence created immediately or in the very near future—I hold strongly that in this period, when to a large extent we are waiting for the development of research, when foreign policy is feeling its way to a new state of things, when we do not know what will he the ultimate extent of the danger of war, when we do not yet know in what direction the real antagonists will be found, what is essential from all sorts of points of view, scientific research, foreign policy, strategic plans and so forth, is at the present time to retain quite unimpaired the homogeneity of an independent organised Air Force until all these questions are cleared up.
I know that people say that the Admiralty or the Navy find themselves in difficulty because the co-operation of the air is increasingly felt to be important for an efficient Navy and that, therefore, they desire to control, as they say, the air arm of the Navy. The word "control" is one of the most ambiguous of words, and it is so often used in political discussions and confuses the issue by being used sometimes in one sense and sometimes in another. No one can dispute that if there is an Air Force arm with the Navy for strategic purposes, and for all purposes of the operations of war, the command must lie with the naval officer who commands the fleet. No one imagines that we could have an independent body working for a common strategic purpose not under the orders of the commander of the main body.
But the word "control" is also sometimes used to mean something quite different, and that is, that the airmen who are doing work with the Navy should belong professionally to the naval profession and not to the air profession. I am sure that that is insanity. I do not believe that anyone who looks closely into the working of the Air Force could believe that such an arrangement could work Let me try to sketch how I imagine such a thing would work, if it were attempted. You must train the airmen who are to do work for the Navy. Presumably, you are going to take naval officers and send them to be trained, and unless you are going to spend a great deal of money you must send them to be trained at the same training colleges that exist for the Air Force. These officers will go there, and if they are going to do any good in the air they will become tremendously keen about it. They will get into the atmosphere of enthusiasm and zeal for everything that has to do with air enterprise, because that prevails most strongly at all these places of education.
They will come back to the Navy after their period of training, which period, if they are to be efficient airmen, cannot be limited to a few months. If they are to be efficient airmen the training must extend over years rather than months. After their period of training they will return to the Navy, zealously devoted to the air, and they will undertake their aerial duties in the Navy. They will find
at once, I venture to prophesy, that there is a great lapse of sympathy between them and their naval coadjutors and commanders. They will find that they are at cross purposes at every turn. If they go on being enthusiastic they will become discouraged. Their attitude and feeling will react upon their superiors and comrades, and you will find that the air arm in the Navy will be looked down upon in the Navy. The Navy will dislike them, and the old joke about the Royal Naval Air Service will begin to apply again. The title R.N.A.S. was said to stand for the words, "Really not a sailor." Much the same feeling will grow up again. Accordingly, the naval arm will be recruited partly by these discouraged enthusiasts, partly also by the failures of the Navy, who will be pushed into the air arm because it will be thought that they will do less harm there than anywhere else.
You will have a small body without the strong professional atmosphere of the Royal Air Force, partly composed of disappointed, disgruntled enthusiasts, and partly composed of disheartened failures. The air arm will be unsatisfactory and inefficient.. It will not have the necessary keenness. Unless they have the keen enthusiasm there will not be the courage amongst the officers of the air arm in doing the work that is required. The main dominating function of this air arm co-operation with the Navy is aerial and not naval. They will have duties of reconnaissance, but that is a thing far more easily learned by an airman than all the work of flying and fighting in the air can ever be learned by a naval officer. You may see a battleship or a cruiser in the distance and identify it, or you may spot artillery fire and so forth, but these things do not govern the whole professional outlook as do the tasks of aviation and all its interests which dominate the mind of the ordinary air officer.
The truth is, that all these theories overlook one of the great factors of human nature, and that is professional outlook. We see professional outlook everywhere. It is a very odd thing, but one can always tell the difference between, say, doctors and lawyers just as we can tell the difference between both of them and clergymen. Although doctors and lawyers and clergymen are so like
in their ordinary life, it is rather remarkable that by reason of their professional occupation they should become so different. You can almost tell the lawyer's face, stamped with lines, partly of cruelty and partly of patience, born of the long experience of inflicting humiliation upon witnesses and of enduring humiliation from Judges. Clergymen are notorious. One is always hearing complaints; and some clergy try to avoid, with very little success, what is called the "parsonic manner." The profession that a man follows enters deeply into his nature. The Air is really a profession. It exercises that sort of control over the minds of the people who engage upon it that makes it a true profession, and it is no more absurd to suggest that you can set soldiers to do the work of naval officers or the work of sailors in connection with the Fleet than it is to suggest that you can get naval officers to do the work of the Air. The airmen is as different, in fact more different, from either the sailor or the soldier as the sailor and the soldier are different from one another.
I hope that the Committee will reject any scheme by which the professional unit of the Air Force is broken. We want the airmen in the Navy to be first-class airmen, not makeshift airmen—first-class airmen, saturated with the professional spirit and the professional skill that belongs to their profession. Therefore I cannot quite echo the suggestion that a very hurried decision should be taken. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a very interesting speech yesterday and in a few observations today, seemed to attach great importance to a rapid decision. I cannot help thinking that there is a certain danger if you try to hurry over questions of this kind. In time of war, rapidity of decision is all important. During the War, everything had to he done hurriedly, and everything had to be rapidly decided, ft is not. so in time of peace. It is far better to come to a wise decision slowly than to come to a foolish decision hastily. I am afraid that unless the Committee go slowly to work and see the whole subject in all its bearings, and study the various reactions which will take place as a consequence of the breaking up of the unity of the Air Force, and all the ancillary difficulties as to how you are
going to deal with supply, with training, with the problem of reserve—all these questions which will come up directly you begin to consider this problem; and they bear upon the problem of whether we shall have a naval aerial arm instead of the co-operation of the three Services in one great task—I am afraid that an erroneous decision may easily be come to.
The problems of civil aviation are pressing. I echo the view that civil aviation is of the highest importance. The truth is that in this country we are at a disadvantage compared with other countries. In this country we are pursuing far more zealously than any other country in the world the policy of economy, and very wisely so, but, in the second place, this island of ours is by no means a very favourable place for aviation, compared with the United States or even France, where they have great expanses of country and vast opportunities for providing large aerodromes and all the surrounding topography which makes aviation so easy in America. We have not the conditions that enable aviation to be easily and simply pursued in this country. These two things, the lack of money and the lack of proper territory for the purposes of aviation, necessarily make civil aviation rather more difficult for us than for any other country. If we, on the top of these disadvantages, insist that our civil aviation is to have the ultimate prospect of becoming economically self-supporting, it is not surprising that the matter goes slowly. I would gladly see civil aviation developed, and I hope my right hon. Friend's interesting and ingenious plan will bear fruition.
In the meantime, I think he will agree that the great task of the Air Ministry is the task of research. I have spoken of the problem of offence and defence. I h ape that. the problem which was very seriously considered during the War, but which has fallen out of sight now, as to whether there are no means of defence against aeroplanes will be more sympathetically and thoroughly considered. We are told that we cannot protect London against being bombed by any means whatever, and that our best chance of protecting it is by threatening to bomb the capital of any country that assails us. This is a problem which we must consider. Therefore, on this and the other
grounds I have mentioned, it is important that during the period of transition research should be proceeded with thoroughly. It is most important that the Air Ministry should avail itself of all the scientific knowledge that is at its disposal, and that it should promote invention by all the means in its power, so that the Air Force may become more and more efficient. I hope, also, that the problems of co-ordination and co-operation will become clearer, that the frontier between the Navy and the Air Force will be more easily drawn, that we shall maintain the homogeneity of an independent Air Force, and that we shall come to recognise that there is no advantage in discussing, as it has been discussed seven or eight times already, whether we are to have an independent Air Force, but that we shall leave the Air Force to pursue its useful task, certain that as in other matters, so in this, the sportsmanship, the natural skill and the natural enterprise, and the deep scientific interest which belong to England will make our Air Force worthy of the King and of the country.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I wish to pay my tribute to the Secretary of State for Air, not only for the speech which he has made to-day, but also for the whole-hearted interest which he has devoted to a subject of which ho had little knowledge before. But I do want to draw attention to the fact which has not been remedied since last year. That is, the Secretary of State for Air is still not a member of the Cabinet. People speak in favour of a Ministry of Defence, but the first step towards the maintenance of defence is to put the three Services on an equal footing, and every argument—and there must be many arguments—that goes on in the Cabinet to-day, is without a representative of the Air; and if we have that Ministry of Defence or that correlation of the three Services it is essential that the Secretary of State for Air should be in the Cabinet, and I am gratified to see the Prime Minister here, because otherwise that message might be difficult to convey. As the Prime Minister is here I draw his attention to the fact that Signor Mussolini, Prime Minister of Italy, considers the Air so important that he has taken over this job in that country.
I find it a little difficult to speak at this particular time, because we are
speaking of three separate things. The Air Vote, the Amendment, and the Navy. I will deal first with the Amendment. I agree thoroughly with it, though it is obscure as drafted. It seems to me that you can say anything on it, and the Proposer and the Seconder contradicted themselves the whole way through. This Resolution would have been put down better on another Service, because it has always been the ambition of the Air Ministry to do exactly what has been suggested—that is, to put the distribution of funds for national defence on a basis of what you can get for your money, and it has been recognised as a basic factor that this money for defence has got to be looked on in relation to what you are going to get for it, and that the sooner we do that the sooner we are going to get economy. On the Air Vote the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has put forward the attractive theory that if you cannot beat your enemy it is best not to waste money on half-measures, but one patent fact not satisfactorily explained by the right hon. Gentleman is the position in which we stand to-day relatively to a foreign Power I am sure that defensive power in the air, even to-day, must affect a foreign policy, because you cannot have anybody with a big stick and be able to answer him back, as you would, unless you had a bigger stick than he had.
In the case of the Air Force, it has been pointed out that an army fights an army and a battleship fights a battleship, and though to a certain degree a similar thing is true as regards aeroplanes, yet the basic use of air power is to destroy things of military value belonging to the enemy either on the land or sea. The reply to that is exceedingly difficult. It is not anti-aircraft guns. These are rather noisy things, but nothing else. There is the reply of building as many machines as your enemy and having the power to hit back Consequently, we come to this, that every effort must be devoted to some defence against aircraft. We have not explored many things that are possible. For instance, we have not explored the possibilities of the manless aeroplane, which you can direct by wireless, and which is not so very far off. There are many questions which can be gone into, from the point of view of re-
search, and the sooner we find them the better, because otherwise we are met with the eternal business of building armament against armament, which we all consider so lamentable.
We had to-day also from the Secretary of State an interesting statement with regard to his opinion on civil flying. I thought it a pity that the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) did not elaborate on that a little more. His speech gave me enormous pleasure, because, after all, the hon. Member not only was responsible in large part for the wonderful organisation of the Royal Flying Corps at the beginning of the War, but also for the foundation of civil aviation in this country, and every word which he says on this matter must be considered with great respect. The Proposer of the Resolution gave it as an accepted fact that a civil machine can be turned into a military machine in a minute. I do not claim to be an expert on these things, but I am told, on the best advice, that that is not so, and that the only advantage in keeping a big civil aviation going is that it gives you the manufacturers all ready to build with the necessary despatch when wanted. The proposal now put forward as a recommendation by the Hamblin Committee is one which was gone into very closely nearly three years ago, when I thinks that private money could have been got with great ease. It seems a pity that we did not go along those lines three years ago, when we might have something to show now rather than failure. The then Secretary of State for War and Air (Mr. Winston Churchill) was at the time in Egypt; had he been in England I believe that we should have passed that proposal and had a very different state of civil aviation to-day.
I now come to the last category in which one has to approach this Debate. That is the question of co-operation or not of the Air Force and the Navy. First, let me say that I have no quarrel with the Navy. If I have any quarrel, it is with the Admiralty, and as somebody has said in this Debate, if you say anything against the Admiralty it is lèse-Majesté. I am prepared to go to the Clock Tower for what I may say about the Admiralty. You cannot help admiring them. They are a very wonderful organisation. What they want they generally get. They have
an, amazing propaganda. I do not know how it is done. It is not shown on the Votes. Sometimes it comes under the head of what is called "hard lying money," but we know that last week, when these Estimates were coming up, all the Press was flooded with their side of the question with regard to co-operation. Then we have Admiralty champions is with us. We admire the Noble reactionary Lord (Viscount Curzon), who asks questions every day about the Admiralty. This question of whether the Navy is going to have its own Air Force or not is becoming a hardy annual. We have it year after year. There have been inquiries by experts, and the thing has been decided. Personally, I have such faith in the answer that I do not mind whether there is an inquiry once a week for the next ten years. The result will always be the same. But what I ask of the Prime Minister is, when we. have this reply will it finish this whole matter? We are all getting sick of it, and we want an assurance that after this inquiry we shall have a little peace to get on with the job.
The grievance which our naval Friend brings forward is a little obscure. Our naval work is the best in the world, and we have better flyers than anybody else, and a better type of machine, but I want to draw his attention to the fact that the Washington Conference only allows you to have four aeroplane carriers and the Air Ministry have given the Navy more machines than they can put into service. I cannot understand what they are complaining about. They complain sometimes about discipline, that is, airmen on board ships have got, to do what the captain tells them, even if it is to scrub the ship. The whole reason is a purely sentimental one, and I thought that it was dealt with efficiently by the Noble Lord. We feel that years ago the Navy did not realise the power and the future which the air had in store, and they now seem to realise it too much. Even sailors themselves advance the theory that in 30 or 40 years ships will be unnecessary, and they draw this curious conclusion, that because ships will not be necessary that is a reason for doing away with the Air Force, though the logical conclusion would be that that would be a reason for doing away with the Navy. We have this curious propaganda, which seems to be spreading through the country, as to
lifting the Navy into the air. For instance, we have this in the "Morning Post," which is particularly bad about it:
If the Fleet has to be gradually lifted out of the sea into the air those best suited to conduct this policy are those who have made a study of and have lived upon the sea.
8.0 P.M.
I would point out that there is a Navy of the Air. That is the Air Force, and that is what it ought to remain. The Admiralty is after the whole hog. They are out to get the whole of the Air Force to themselves. In the course of the Debate on last year's Estimates, the First Lord of the Admiralty said:
We have to consider the importance of the Air Force not only from the point of view of the defence of these islands against air attacks, but as an integral part of the naval defences of the country.
Then I asked:
Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, that the Navy should he charged with the defence of the country against air attack? 
The First Lord then said:
I did not say that "—
what he had just said two lines above. That is what we are afraid of, that this agitation to get control of the Air Force is the thin end of the wedge, and we know the immense power of the Admiralty, the biggest bureaucracy in the world. When they get their feet in, they wilt do the same as when they were in partnership with the Royal Air Force. They will duplicate the training stations, they will have separate contract. departments, and. the two departments will be pitted against each other and have to pay enormous prices. I ask the House for-the protection of a small and new force against the older force. Surely, if an organisation were found bad in the War and another one was found good, when peace comes that is no reason for changing it.

Viscount CURZON: After the speech to which we have just listened I think it would be a good thing if we could have the Navy case put forward in as short a time as possible. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) was the kind of speech we are accustomed to hear from the perfervid advocates of the air who can think of no other consideration. You will never got co-operation between the Services so long as you have people
animated by that mentality putting forward these views. The point of view, as I understand it, is this. The Navy itself requires an Air Service for purely naval purposes and nothing else. Nothing is more absurd than for the advocates of the air to come to this House and try to make out that this is a deep-rooted plot to uproot the Air Ministry and destroy the Air Service. It is my view and the view of many on the naval side that so far from doing away with it we definitely recognise the Air Service as an essential part of our national scheme of defence. What the Navy requires is an Ail: Service of its own with entire control and responsibility for it. It does not in any way wish to control air operations operating from the land over the sea.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Not yet.

Viscount CURZON: Nor in the future. What we want is complete control and responsibility for the Naval Air Service. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that the Admiralty wanted to set up separate training centres and everything else on its own. Nothing is further from the mind of the Admiralty.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: They did it before.

Viscount CURZON: They did it before, and those who say so go back to the earlier stages of the War. That is one of the favourite tricks of the air people. The Navy want to organise the training of its Air Service as far as possible through the Air Ministry. If it gets its own air arm it wants to organise supplies through the Air Ministry, and it does not want to enter into competition with them. it wants to avoid overlapping and competition. The hon. and gallant Member said something about military propaganda. I wonder if he has looked at page 37 of these Estimates, where he will find an item for "Advertisements in newspapers, £1,000." I came across one of these advertisements in yesterday's "Daily Chronicle."

The headings were "Hands off the Air Ministry," "New Campaign against Air Service," "Aerial Warfare the Airman's Job." The advertisement reads: "They see their power waning, there is the rub." You can judge of the rest of the article by the headings and by that sort of sentence. What, the Admiralty wants is fair consideration for the case they will put forward. I urge upon the Prime Minister that this question has been under the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence for over a year now, and no decision has yet been arrived at. Another Committee, we are told, is to bet set up, and we learn that it is merely an extension of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I hope that is not merely a, device to delay everying. I hope the Committee will go into the matter without undue delay, and that when it comes to a decision it will do so with full knowledge of the Navy's case and without. prejudice against the Navy or the Air Service. Nothing I deplore more than the fact that a great many Members and a great many people in the country think that the Navy is antagonistic to the Air Service. It is not at all. The Navy looks on the Air Service as absolutely vital to it. Without it the Navy is completely blind when it goes into action against a Navy that has an Air Service. If a Navy not equipped with an Air Service tried to go into action against a Navy with an Air Service it would not have one chance. It is because of what is taking place across the Atlantic and elsewhere in connection with the use of aircraft with the Navy that. the Admiralty is so uneasy. It is no use having a one-power standard unless you give the Navy the Air Service it requires. At all costs we must represent the Navy case and see it gets fair consideration.

Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 147.

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades. Sir George Rowland


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Blundell, F. N.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter. Major A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Becker, Harry
Brass, Captain W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bel lairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bruford, R.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bruton, Sir James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Privett, F. J.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank
Raine, W.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Butcher, Sir John George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cassels, J. D.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Remnant, Sir James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkins John W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Houfton, John Plowright
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hume, G. H.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Robinson, Sir T (Lancs., Stretford)


Clayton, G. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sandon, Lord


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Shepperson, E. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shipwright, Captain D.


Davidson, Major-General Sir .J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Simpson- Hinchliffe, W. A.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Singleton, J. E.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Skelton, A. N.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lort-Williams, J.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lougher, L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Edmondson, Major A. J,
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Ednam, Viscount
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stanley, Lord


Ellis, R. G.
Maddocks, Henry
Steel, Major S. Strang


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stewart, Gershorm (Wirral)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Flanagan, W. H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morden, Col, W. Grant
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morris, Harold
Titchfield, Marquess of


Furness, G. J.
Murchison, C. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nail, Major Joseph
Tubbs, S. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Turton Edmund Russborough


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain E.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gould, James C.
Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)
Wells, S. R.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Greaves Lord, Walter
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Whitia, Sir William


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Gretton, Colonel John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Winterton, Earl


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wise, Frederick


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pease, William Edwin
Wolmer, Viscount


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D-by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Halstead, Major D.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipson, H. H. 
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel




Gibbs.


NOES


Adams, D.
Broad, F. A.
Cairns, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bromfield, William
Cape, Thomas


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brotherton, J.
Charleton, H. C.


Attlee, C. R.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Clarke, Sir E. C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.
Collins, Pat (Walsall)


Barnes, A.
Buckle, J.
Collison, Levi


Batey, Joseph
Burgess, S.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Bonwick, A.
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Bowdler, W. A.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.




Duffy, T. Gavan
Lansbury, George
Shinwell, Emanuel


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Simpson, J. Hope


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N)
Linfield, F. C.
Snell, Harry


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lowth. T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Falconer, J
Lunn, William
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Stephen, Campbell


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Greenall, T.
March, S.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Groves, T.
Middleton, G.
Thornton, M.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.
Tout, W. J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Muir, John W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hardie, George D.
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster. Ince)


Harney, E. A.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Warne, G. H.


Harris, Percy A.
Nichol, Robert
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hartshorn, Vernon
O'Grady, Captain James
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Sidney


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Welsh, J. C


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Ailen (Wigan)
Weslwood, J.


Hill, A.
Phillipps, Vivian
Wheatley. J.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
White. H. G. (Birkenhead E)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Wiqnall, James


Irving, Dan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


John. William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wright, W.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Rose, Frank H.



Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Saklatvala, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T.


Kirkwood, D.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Griffiths.


Question put, and agreed to.

Supply Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES Hoes in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

Orders of the Day — NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.

" That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 33,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain lull Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India. during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."

It being after a quarter-past-Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question, put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. BARKER: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in mines, and is of opinion that legislation to improve and strengthen the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, should be introduced and carried into law
without delay in order to secure the fullest protection possible to those engaged in this dangerous industry.''
This is one of the most important subjects that can be brought before the House, a subject imbued with tragedy more awful than was ever depicted by the greatest genius. The deaths and accidents occurring daily, yea hourly, in our mines are among the great horrors of our industrial civilisation. The accidents that occurred in the year 1922 were responsible for 1,029 deaths. The figures of serious accidents, causing incapacity for snore than seven days, are not, yet published. For the five years ended 31st December, 1914, the average number killed per year was 1,495 persons. The average number injured per year and incapacitated for more than seven days, was no less than 164,150 persons. For the four years ended 31st December, 1921, the average was 1,125 persons killed per year, and 107,969 disabled for more than seven days. For the 10 years ended 1921, the total number killed in the industry in the United Kingdom was 12,897. The serious accidents figures are not available, but, certainly, they were over a million.
I want to refer to the accident's that took place last year, and to show what kind of accidents they were. I have not got the complete list, but I and my colleagues are very much indebted to the Secretary for Mines for the great mass of information which he has supplied to us during the last few weeks. From falls of roof and sides in 1922 there were 548 killed. The number given as cases of serious injury was 1,911. From explosions of fire damp or coal dust there were 73 killed and 123 seriously injured. By explosives, including accidents due to shot firing, there were 17 killed and 297 seriously injured. Haulage accidents below ground were 212 killed and 1,127 seriously injured. Shaft accidents were responsible for 40 persons killed, and there were 97 cases of serious injury.
The purpose of this Debate is to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Home to these terrible accidents, and to suggest some improvement in the Mines Act whereby this terrible death-rate can be reduced. The first suggestion I have to make is that there should be a shaft sunk if the working face exceeds one mile from the shaft. Some working faces, to my own personal knowledge, are no less than three miles from the pit bottom, and there is nothing in the Mines Act which places any limit to the distance that these underground workings can go from the shaft bottom. There is a Section in the Act which prevents two shafts being less than fifteen yards apart, but there is nothing in the Act to prevent them being fifteen miles apart. If these shafts were only a mile from the working place, it would, to start with, reduce haulage costs which represent a very serious factor in mining. I have already shown that haulage accidents are very numerous and it would also reduce the number of these accidents besides improving the ventilation of the colliery, improving the health of the miner, reducing the risk of explosion and reducing the quantity of coal dust on roadways. These are incontrovertible facts and in view of the fact that the mining industry has been, until recently, one of the wealthiest industries of the country—an industry which has yielded the whole of its capital Lack to the colliery owners every ten years—it is a grave reflection upon the colliery owners that they have not sunk more shafts in this country so that We might have the
benefits I have already enumerated. Accidents arising from falls of roofs and sides are the most numerous. I think the number which I have already given, is no less than 548 for last year, which is over 50 per cent. of the entire total of fatal accidents below ground. Nothing in my opinion is more deserving of the attention of the Mines Department than the reduction of the number of accidents from falls of roof and sides. In the "Colliery Guardian" for this week—9th March—the editor writes:
From a statistical standpoint the death-rate from falls of roof and sides in coal mining is truly appalling.
He goes on to say, and this is very note-worthy:
There was a marked decrease in the accident rate following the passing of the 1887 Act, but from 1892 there has been no perceptible improvement.
That refers to accidents from falls of roof and sides and it is the testimony of the "Colliery Guardian" which is the colliery owners' paper. I do not know that they own it, but it always takes up their side of the question and I think therefore that is remarkable testimony. The prevention of these falls of roof and side is the most important subject that can occupy-the minds of mining engineers. I find on going through some of the records of this House that the question has been discussed here many times. I find that when, Mr. McKenna was Home Secretary he was asked what steps were being taken to stow vacant places at the mines by hydraulic pressure, but nothing has been done in that respect, although it. is several years ago since the question was raised. Stowing is the best wad- of reducing the number of these accidents and in saying that I am supported by the highest authorities. The best way of reducing these accidents is to stow the vacant places with rubbish instead of bringing it tip the pit to defile the surface. This would reduce the spaces for accumulations of gas, promote safer conditions and largely prevent "weight" or "squeeze" and would reduce the number of falls of roof especially in seams lying close together. It would also prevent subsidences and the destruction of very valuable and vital public and private property on the surface. As I say, I am supported in this view by the highest authorities, and I should like to quote
from a very eminent mines inspector who was inspecting the North Stafford Collieries at the time when I worked there. I am referring to Mr. Arthur Robert Sawyer. He wrote a book on "Accidents in Mines"—one of the finest hooks in my opinion ever written on the subject, containing more than 100 diagrams of places he had personally visited after these fatal accidents. Like everyone else in that profession, he urges that something should be done to reduce the terrible death rate from falls of roof and sides. He writes:
The roof has generally to be supported, not only to ensure the safety of the workmen, but also to enable them to pursue their work at all. That is done in a variety of ways.
He gives first place to "packing the gob entirely," and says, "Where this is done the. subsidence is gradual," that is, it has very little ill effects because the superincumbent strata come down very gradually on to the gob. Where stowing is not. done, he says:
Men have to resort to precipitate flight owing to the sudden total or partial crashing of the gob…Packs should be regularly formed and kept to the face systematically…The enforcement of such rules would indicate to the workmen the best and most approved manner of keeping themselves safe.
We have another mining authority, Mr. Daniel Burns, mining engineer and professor of mining in the Royal Technical College, Glasgow. He says that
Heavy falls of roof in old workings, set free large quantities of gas from the overlying strata which may prove a source of danger to the miner.
That view he publishes in his work called "Safety in Coal Mines." Haulage accidents below ground were last year responsible for 212 deaths and 1,127 cases of serious injury. Shorter distances between the shafts would, as I have said, reduce these accidents. Many of them are due to faulty couplings causing trams to run away, yet there are plenty of shackles and couplings invented to make uncoupling impossible, but they are not used. Safety is always made subordinate to the output and the cost We, as miners, know that many inventions have been made to reduce the number of accidents arising from haulage.
I should like at this point to put in a plea for the overworked pit pony. One of the most. pitiable subjects that we could
deal with is the condition of the underground animals. There is nothing in the Mines Act that specifies how many hours they shall work. There is some general phraseology that they shall not be overworked, but that can be stretched very liberally by any colliery manager who wants to escape a prosecution. What we say is that there should be definite hours of labour for the horse the same as there is for the man, and that he should be regularly fed, and not be overloaded. These animals very often pull very heavy trams of coal down long inclines, and they are so weak that they are not able to resist the pressure of the load, which very often run away with them down these hills, and accidents ensue. I commend to the Minister the necessity of revising the Regulations at once with reference to the treatment of these dumb animals underground. It is absolutely horrifying to think of these poor brutes working down the pit sometimes three and four shifts without any rest, especially during the week-end, and I hope that, this will have. the attention of the Minister.
I recommend to the Minister that he should give the greatest possible encouragement to those who are inventing appliances for reducing accidents in mines. Amongst the miners there are a large number of men with inventive genius, and they have come to our conferences over and over again and brought their appliances, at great cost and trouble to themselves, on purpose to exhibit them before the conference, hut, strange to say, very seldom are these appliances adopted by colliery owners, who find some reason or another for not adopting them, and I say that these men should have every encouragement—men who invent safety shackles, shot firing appliances, and many kinds of patents for reducing accidents.
I want to say a word or two here on the question of shot firing, because I contend that there is an appliance on the market to-day that should be adopted. I am not. going to name it.. and it has not been named in the Government. Reports, but I daresay the Minister knows very well the appliance to which I refer. I contend—and I have very strong evidence to support. me, as I shall show before I have finished—that this appliance would practically wipe out these terrible accidents. From 1919 to 1922 there were no fewer than 61 men killed and 645 injured
by shot firing. The secretary for Mines, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. W. John), deprecated the introduction of a certain appliance, and said that it is liable to get out of order, that it delays and hinders the operation of shot firing, and that the vast majority of shot firing accidents would not be prevented by the use of appliances of this kind. I have got overwhelming evidence here—and I shall furnish it to the Minister after this Debate is over—from managers and mining engineers at some of the largest and most dangerous collieries in the country that are using this appliance, and I will enumerate some of these colliery companies. There is the Markham Colliery Company, the Dinas Colliery Company, the Pwllbach Colliery Company, the Taibach Colliery Company, the Llynypra Colliery Company, the Ely Colliery Company. and the Glamorgan Coal Company, and there are many others besides, but the very highest testimony is given by the managers of these collieries as to the efficacy of this appliance in preventing accidents.
Another method that I would recommend for the reduction of accidents is to improve the lighting. I find that the Miner's Lamp Committee has just issued its Report, which is signed by Mr. T. Greenland Davies, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, Sir W. Walker, Mr. Hubert .Jonkins, of South Wales, Mr. S. Rocbuck, of Yorkshire, and others. This Committee recommend that General Regulation 5 should be amended to establish beyond doubt that the examination which it requires includes an examination of working places for inflammable and noxious gases in all cases in which a workman is provided with a flame safety lamp, and that a sufficient number of flame safety lamps should be used by competent workmen to examine their working places at reasonable intervals during the shift. I hope the Minister will rote that his own inspectors recommend an amendment of the Act, and that is what we are asking for to-night. We are supported on a very important point by his own Department.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): Does the hon. Member mean the Regulation, or the Act?

Mr. BARKER: General Regulation 5. This question of lighting is a very serious question indeed. To the minors it is all-
important. It enables them to detect slips and slants in the roof and to protect themselves very largely from falls of roof and sides, and by giving them a better light it would wipe out what is known as miner's nystagmus, which is one of the most terrible complaints that the miner suffers from, and which is almost entirely due to bad lighting. I find that last year certificates were given to 1,986 victims of this complaint and that 4,804 were brought over from previous years, showing that no fewer than 6,790 miners to-day are suffering from this terrible disease. This entails an enormous cost, if it is only in compensation, and say that on grounds of economy, as well as on grounds of humanity, it would pay the companies to improve the lighting of the collieries.
Another system that could be recommended for reducing accidents is to have a more efficient method of inspection. The present system of inspection is very unsatisfactory. I do not attach any blame to the inspectors, because their number is inadequate; that is not their fault. I find in one of the reports by an inspector, I think, from Yorkshire, that in the. year 1919 there were only a dozen inspectors for 461 coal mines. I wish to make this observation with reference to this matter of the inspection that after inspectors visit the mines, the reports are withheld: there is a great deal of complaint from that cause. When an inspector visits a mine he generally inspects part of a colliery by taking a district underground. He goes away, writes his report, I presume, and that report is a sealed document. It is put into the archives of the Ministry of Mines, and no one knows anything further about it. We contend that these reports should be published, sent to the miners, and also given to the coal-owners so that the benefit of the inspection can be realised by those responsible.
Again, we say that the firemen's duties should be confined to looking solely after safety. The fireman should not be held responsible for cost and output. His duties should be entirely restricted to looking after the safety of the men under him. He should have a district or area that he could keep under constant supervision. The districts, to my certain knowledge, are very much too large at present, and the examiner is not properly able to supervise, his district. I am going
to suggest something that I am certain will not meet with the approbation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am going to suggest that these men should be appointed by the workmen, who place themselves in their hands. It is one of the saddest commentaries upon our present system that those who are interested in the cheap production of coal are those who have the sole right to appoint these men to look after the safety and the lives of those under them. In any proper system of mining these men would have sole and absolute control over the men who were responsible for their lives. If this cannot be done I respectfully submit that the colliery examiners should be taken from under the control and authority of the coal-owners and the official should be appointed by the State. He would not then have any intimidation: his life would not depend upon the truthfulness or the untruthfulness of his reports.
In respect to the workmen's inspectors I want to say this monthly interval ought to be taken out of the Act. These men representing the workmen should have the right to inspect the mines any time they choose, and not be debarred by a time limit as now. If such a system of inspection were adopted it would very materially reduce accidents. I want to say a few words about the Department. I find the cost of the Mines Department is by Statute limited to £250,000 per year that is less than a farthing per ton. In 1922 this 2250,000 was reduced to £170,284, and in the Estimate for the present financial year it is further reduced to £95,284 or less than one-eighth of a penny per ton. If there is such a thing as criminal economy it is here. With a death roll and an accident roll like we have there can be no pretext whatever for economising in the Mines Department. I should not like to have it on my conscience, if I were the Minister of Mines, that by having first one official and then another sent away there might as a result be widows and orphans. It .is no use saying that efficiency is not impaired by reducing the expenditure. We cannot at ail accept that. We cannot see that the Geddes axe or any other axe is justified in cutting down the expenditure of this Department which is responsible for the lives of 1,100,000 men.
In 1922 there was approximately 3,300, mines at work, and there were only 86 inspectors. This was one to every 38 mines, which was entirely inadequate. Again, with reference to another part of the Department of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I refer to what is known as the Safety in Mines Research Board. This Board consists of 10 very eminent and highly-qualified specialists, w ho are appointed to direct the general work of the Mines Research Department, which inquires into cases of dangerous mines with a view to preventing such danger. So far as I know, we have very little result from this Department. I should like to ask the Minister, in his reply, to say what it has done, what it is doing now, and what that branch says about preventing accidents from falls of the roof, haulage, shot-firing, explosions, and a very terrible disease known as miner's nystagmus? Is this Department really functioning or is it being strangled on the ground of economy" If this Department is working, we should like to have some results, and we should like the miners to be convinced. and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. that the appliances which I have enumerated are either efficient or not efficient for reducing the accident roll in mines. One can easily visualise plenty of work for this Research Department and there can be no nobler work for any body of men to be engaged in.
In conclusion, let me say that the legislation passed by this House from 1872 onwards has made the mines much safer than before. As an industry we are very grateful for the legislation passed by this House of Commons at the urgent request of our predecessors, the effect of which has been to reduce the death and accident roll in mines. I find that the average number of deaths per thousand for the 10 years 1873–1882 was 2.24, while in 1919 it went down to 94 per thousand, or less than one-half. These are very gratifying figures, and it shows that a reduction of accidents inevitably follows preventive legislation. I say there can be no justification for not getting the benefits which are continually accruing from science when applied to the mining industry. and we ought to have these benefits at the earliest possible moment. We have, to-day, in spite of all the improvements.
a death roll of over 1,000 men per annum and over 100,000 maimed and mangled and mutilated in mines. Therefore we want this Act of Parliament drastically amended. We say, further, that the Government can have no adequate reason or justification for refusing to legislate on this question. The death roll is terribly appalling, and I hope as a result of this humble effort that we shall have still further reductions in the death roll.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HARPER PARKER: I rise to second the Resolution which has just been moved by the hon. Member for the Abertillery Division (Mr. Barker) and, in doing so, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a section of workers who are not underground workers, but whose labour is confined to the surface. In particular I would like to ask for the consideration of the House whilst I attempt to bring to the minds of hon. Members the responsibilities attached to this kind of work and the conditions surrounding the work of the class known as colliery winding enginemen. If I have the temerity to suggest to this House that there is no class of colliery workers more important for the safe working of the industry than winding enginemen. I hope hon. Members will not think I am stretching the fact. I am quite sure they will pardon me if I do somewhat stretch the fact, because I served for over 20 years as a winding engineman myself, and I should not be worthy of my calling if I did not stand up in defence of my own trade. I should like to ask for the indulgence of the House while I call attention to the position of the colliery winding enginemen. I hope I shall not be considered disrespectful to the position which you occupy, Mr. Speaker, when I say that you may get up from your Chair and go out and leave behind you something that you will need, and all that would happen would be that you would return to fetch or cause it to be brought to you. A winding enginemen has not that opportunity, because a mistake in a fraction of time is irrecoverable, and he has no chance to recover after an oversight. When you remember that in the deepest windings that are taking place to-day hardly more than a minute is taken in
completing the wind from start to finish, you will recognise that there is not much time to make a mistake and recover it. For these reasons, I think it will be generally agreed that these men carry a very heavy responsibility, when you consider in another relation the number of lives entrusted to their care all through their shift. If you couple this with the suggestion which I have endeavoured to put before the House, it will be easily recognised how near, not merely to accidents but to death and injury they are as a consequence of accidents. It is particularly in the explanation of the position of these men in relation to the Coal Mines Act that I desire to address the House in seconding this Resolution. I want to refer in the first place to the Coal Mines Act of 1911, in that relation wherein it provides that there shall be attached to every winding engine an over-winding apparatus, which is put there to prevent, or, if I may say so, to correct the forgetfulness that may ensue in the working of the winding engine. I agree with the hon. Member who moved the Resolution when he states that all he has said and all the pleadings he has urged have simply been with a desire to persuade the Government to recognise that the time has come when we might reasonably ask them to consider the desirability of amending the Coal Mines Act. of 1911. We have had that Act in operation until mill mining has changed many of its aspects in that time, conditions and circumstances have altered, and we have had plenty of time to see and realise the shortcomings of that Act and the undoubted need that exists for improving it.
With regard to the provision of overwinding apparatus, if you turn to the Act you will find that the reference to this matter is not at all clear, neither is it as definite as we believe it should be in order to ensure safety to life, limb and property. It merely says that there shall be an overwinding apparatus, and that is the end of it. It does not define or lay clown where it shall be attached or at what time it shall come into operation. It does not lay down that such apparatus shall be under definite control, and it does not say that it shall be-inspected periodically or at all. It lays down no rule in respect of the adjustment of such apparatus, and the result is that from
time to time we have evidence coming to us in cases of overwinding where either the overwinding apparatus has not operated at all, or else that it has been set so that it does not come into operation as effectively as it should do to secure the safety of all concerned. We think that Act should be made perfectly clear in its instructions in relation to such an important matter as this. May I put this to the House? We know of instances where the overwinding apparatus is set to come into operation after the conclusion of the winding when it is completed. While that may be very necessary in order to ensure safety from the danger of the winding engineman starting the engine in the wrong way, it does nothing to protect the men who may be travelling down into the mine in the. descending cage, and before the time the overwinding gear comes into operation the descending cage may be dashed to the bottom. with loss of life and injury. It merely a desire to persuade the Government that the relation of the provisions affecting overwinding apparatus should be made clear and not left as they now are, that I am making this point.
There should be some definite arrangement to arrange for periodical overhauling and inspection of this apparatus. Further, we would like to suggest to the Rouse that the law should be so amended that, not only should the apparatus be fixed to control the ascending cage, but it should also control the descending cage, so that if one of the apparatus should fail there would be the safeguard of another on the opposite side coming into operation. We feel we are not asking for anything unreasonable when we suggest further consideration of a condition such as this. I want to refer to another aspect in relation to winding operations which we believe is not conducive to security or safety. I wish to allude to the situation which is arising only too often in the present day where an engineman employed on the downcast engine of a colliery is required by the management—and this practice is on the increase—to undertake the responsibility of attention to and control of another set of winding engines in another engine house altogether. This has been on the increase since the time of the miners' lock-out. It is said that. managers con-
tend they cannot afford to pay for too many engines. I have had personal experience of this, and at this moment I wish to urge that this extension of the duties of a winding engineman is a direct. violation of the Coal Mines Act Regulations. Clause 57 of the Act lays it down definitely and clearly that the duty of the winding engineman is in relation to one set of engines only, and it is provided he shall not, during the whole of the time the men are below ground, he away from his engine or be inattentive.
I may present to the House a case actually in existence at the present moment—a ease that we have brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman as well as to the notice of the divisional inspector. I hope the House will understand I do not wish to speak derogatorily of the inspector. I am merely pointing out the imperative need arising from the present, interpretation of the working of the Act. This is a case where the winding engineman goes on duty with a night shift. at a colliery at which he is employed. He puts his men down into the mine, and. as soon as he has completed that operation, acting under instructions from the management, he locks the door of the engine house, walks across the highway to another set of engines and commences t o wind water. I think I need hardly submit that that is a direct. and complete violation of the spirit and intention of the Act, and it ought not to be allowed to proceed any further. I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the name of the colliery and the necessary facts. I wish also to draw attention to a further aspect of the case. We, drew the attention of the inspector to these conditions. We know he has been to the colliery, but for some reason or other the conditions are still operating. I hold a letter in my hand which is evidence from the colliery itself that that is so. We say again that if the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, are examined it will be found that there is no clear or no sufficiently clear definition of the instructions laid clown in the Act. I believe the inspector did his duty, but he did not go quite as far as I would have gone if the management refused to recognise their obligations under the Act. If I had had power to do so, I should have caused the man to be prosecuted, but for some reason the inspector has proceeded no further.
I am speaking on behalf of the winding engineman and the men who are dependent on his attendance at his proper engine. We may have men terribly injured in the working of the mine brought to the pit bottom, and it may be necessary they should be conveyed to the top as quickly as possible, but they are unable to get out because the engineman is not in attendance. We might even have an explosion, which, unfortunately, is not an uncommon occurrence. There might be any number of things that require the attendance of the winding engineman, but he is not there to give it. That is serious enough. We bold that the Mines Act and its Regulations as applied to the man's duty and labour is sufficient to indict him in a Court of Law for neglect of duty, although he is obeying the instructions of the management. I like to speak candidly at any time when I have anything to say, and without offence. A strange thing has happened. It is strange to me, at any rate. We have brought this position to the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as he will agree, and we have done our best to demonstrate, from a practical standpoint, how this matters appeals to us. If I understood him clearly, and I think I did—I hope he will contradict me and place the true facts before me if I did not—I certainly came away with the impression when directly challenged as to what would be the position of a winding engineman if, while he was attending to the second engine, he was required to perform duty at the first engine and could not do it, because of the second duty, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it would depend on circumstances. I respectfully urge that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and its Regulations, were never framed to he dependent on circumstances, and that they ought never to be dependent on circumstances. Instead of the law being dependent on circumstances, circumstances must be dependent on the law, and unless that position is observed, our men are in constant danger—danger of their characters going and their liberty being taken away from them. It was commonly said, during my experience, that winding engineman stood with one foot inside the door of the prison while the other foot was, apparently, at liberty. It meant that he was always in the midst
of danger, owing to the responsible character of his occupation. May I point out that a very great authority in relation to these matters has made the position perfectly clear? I refer to the work issued by Sir Richard Redmayne, who was recognised by the Department in his time, and is recognised by us from the workmen's standpoint, as one of the ablest authorities we have known in the industry. Sir Richard Redmayne, in laying down his opinion relating to this matter, states emphatically that a winding engineman should not be given any other work, during the hours of his attendance, which will interfere in any way with his close attention to his duties as laid down in the Act.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): It seems to me that the hon. Member is criticising the administration of the present law. The Motion suggests a change in the law, and I do not understand the connection of his argument with that. If he can connect it with some further legislation, it would be in order. Otherwise, his proper opportunity would be on the salary of the Secretary for Mines.

Mr. W. THORNE: Surely an hon. Member is entitled to criticise the present law with a view to its alteration? Otherwise, how are we to bring the matter before the hon. and gal1ant, Gentleman?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be in order if he suggests new legislation. My reason for intervening was, that a number of hon. Members wish to argue in favour of a change in the law, and this will be their only opportunity. They would not he able to argue that on the salary of the Secretary for Mines, but the hon. Member's argument seems to he directed against the administration rather than in favour of new legislation.

Mr. PARKER: I am sorry if I have departed from the strict lines of order, but, as my hon. Friend has just said, my anxiety is to demonstrate that the law as it is laid down in so many words in the Act, is not so clear and definite as it might be, and does not offer a safeguard but provides an elasticity which is taken full advantage of by firms throughout the country.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House another aspect of the matter,
which is provided for in the Act of 1911. It is provided in that Act and its regulations that, in connection with the winding engine-house, there shall be provided sanitary arrangements for the convenience of the engineman, which shall allow him to respond to the calls of Nature without having to go away from his engine or violate the law in any way. Our experience is that, on account of the indefinite character of the provision in the Act, advantage is taken in many places, and that these arrangements are not placed in such a position that the winding engineman can carry on his work without any violation of the law. We know of places where, owing to the fact that the Act provides that it shall be placed in or adjacent to the winding engine-house, the term "adjacent" is taken advantage of, and the sanitary convenience is placed at a good distance from the engine-house, so that the winding engineman has to bring his engine to a standstill, leave it, and go out of the engine-house. This is a matter which vitally affects the health of the winding engineman. I am speaking from experience in this relation, and during my experience I have known what it has been—and I hope the House will take this as I offer it—to have to have a bucket by the handle of the engine, and to respond to the calls of Nature by degrees, in order to maintain my position at the engine and carry on with the work. That was one of the greatest reasons why that provision was inserted in the Act of 1911, and we say, after practically 12 years' experience of the way in which the employers have carried out that provision, that there is room for further amendment in the Act, to ensure that it shall be carried out without any deviation from the purpose of this House when it passed that law.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the desirability of such an amendment of the Act as would provide for some control of the speed tit which men shall be lowered into the mine or raised from the mine. We know positively that the speed at which men are compelled to he put down into the mine or raised from it is far too great to ensure safety. Speaking as a practical engineman, through many years I have deplored the fact that I have been com-
pelled to throw men into the mine, and to bring them out, at a speed equal to that at which minerals have been brought out. We suggest that there is a maximum of danger, especially in pits with wooden guides, because you are never sure in any operation, whether with minerals or with men, that you are going to bring your cage to the top in safety. We cannot find in the Act any provision regulating this matter, and the result is that in very many cases, from different causes, men are thrown down into the mine instead of being lowered down or raised from it in the way that they ought to he. Owing to pressure of circumstances, the engineman has no option but to throw them down, in order to get them down within the time limit fixed by the management. We suggest that this is a direction in which there might be great loss of life at any moment, and we respectfully submit in this Motion that the present law needs some amendment.
Returning to the question of the provision and the location of overwinding apparatus, I suggest that these machines should be periodically examined by the inspectors of mines. The inspectors should make a point, when they visit a colliery, of going into the engine-room and examining not only the overwinding apparatus, but the other machinery there. Hon. Members may perhaps think this strange, but I have passed through 22 years as a winding engineman, and I have never known a mines inspector to go into the engine-house to examine the machinery. I have known, through many years, that the engines I have been working have had brakes attached to them which would not hold the engine still in any position and that other parts of the machinery have not been in the state required by the Act. It is all very well to expect the workman to proclaim the fact that the engines are not in proper order, but that ought not to be expected of them. It is the clear duty of those responsible for the safeguarding of life to see that those parts of the machinery are inspected periodically, in order that they may have control. In putting forward these suggestions. I should like to say, as a last word, that not one word has been said with any desire to hamper the working of a colliery, but entirely with the wish to provide for
the safe working of the collieries and to give the maximum of security to life and limb to the winding enginemen. I beg to thank the House for its patience.

Mr. J. P. HOUSTON: I am sure, that than in my first venture in addressing the House I shall be met with a good deal of indulgence by ray hon. Friends on all sides, because I may claim that I have as many friends among the miners of all districts as I have amongst any other class of people. I wish to speak on this Motion, and I am sure there is no one in the House but will agree with the former part of it, which states
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in mines.
Every hon. Member who has any connection whatever with mining deeply deplores the tremendous loss of life which occurs in our mines and the amount of suffering entailed by non-fatal accidents. We are asked, in this Motion, to amend the Coal Mines Act, 1911, because it is believed by the hon. Member who moved the Motion that an amendment to that Act would decrease the risk of accident in our collieries. If that can be proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Mines, the inspectors, the coal-owners and the managers, no one would hesitate in agreeing that such an amendment should take place, because we wish to use every endeavour to decrease both the loss of life and also the suffering entailed by non-fatal accidents. When I come to consider the suggestions put forward from the opposite benches, as to how the list of fatal accidents can he decreased, I do not feel I can go very far with either the Mover or the Seconder. At present the legislation—the Coal Mines Act and the attendant Regulations—dealing with all branches of the industry, are such that it is absolutely impossible for either owner, manager, or man to keep them for a single day. If you add to them, you make? it still more difficult. I want to see, instead of amended and additional legislation a closer co-operation between owners, managers and men, for the purpose of discussing and considering together what can best be done to reduce this appalling list of accidents.
I same to this House, not by the influence of the coalowners nor by the votes of the miners. I therefore claim that if I have any knowledge of mining
conditions I have a right to speak, so far as I possibly can, from an impartial point of view. I want, in this my first speech in the House, to say that no one has greater sympathy with the miners, and no one, I think, has done more to make the lot of the miners better than it otherwise would have been. In my own district. I believe that the-collieries, with which up to lately I was connected, have not only been the safest pits, but have been the pits where the men have worked and lived under the best possible conditions. I do not see why, by co-operation between owners and men, we cannot get similar conditions in every coalfield in the country. It is true that some of our pits are more modern than those you find in Scotland, the North of England, or South Wales: but I see no reason why, given goodwill on all sides, there should not be better and safer conditions of working and a happier, better and brighter life away from work. That is what we want, more than anything else. We want to ensure that, apart from their work, the people of this country, who have to toil either underneath the surface, at the factory, or wherever it be, shall feel that all the country is taking a deep interest in their welfare.
In opposing this Motion for an amendment of the Act of 1911. I do so because I do not see that the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) are such as would, if carried into legislation, decrease the list of accidents. We are told that we ought to sink shafts every mile.

Mr. BARKER: Hear, hear!

Mr. HOUFTON: In these days, when "all the shallow seams of coal are practically worked out: with mines becoming deeper and deeper, and being worked at a depth of from800 to 1,000 yards, and even more, it would be utterly impossible, either as a commercial or as any kind of practical proposition to sink shafts every mile. It would utterly destroy the colliery because you not only have to have your shaft, you have to have your railway sidings, your winding apparatus, your screens, and all that kind of thing and to-day you cannot put down a colliery with two shafts of 900 yards depth each to draw 4,000 tons a day under £1,000,000. There is one way of saving
the lives of our miners, and that is by making it impossible to find them any work in our collieries. If they never went down the mine they would never meet with accidents. That is not the way we can carry on the great industry which is the very foundation of all the industries of the country, and the very lifeblood of our existence and prosperity. We are asked also to see if we cannot stow by hydraulic means the gobs in our mines. I have seen it in operation in Saxony and the system is only practicable where the seams are at a great inclination, and where the sand and water flowing together fill up the portions where the coal has been removed, leaving the remainder free from water. I have been a colliery manager in Staffordshire within a very few miles of Hanley, and I know something about what the seconder was speaking of. I am willing to further and to adopt and to advocate any practical method which can be devised either by owners, managers, trade union leaders or the miners themselves, and I feel sure, knowing as I do the feeling of the owners and of the management quite as much and even more than the owners, there is no practical proposition at which they would hesitate to bring to pass a great reduction in this mournful toll which is paid for the production of our mineral wealth.
I should like to say a word with regard to the enginemen. I have never known in all the mining experience I have had in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire an engineman who has had to look after some other piece of machinery. It may be exceptional in the district the hon. Member spoke of, hut, so far as any district I know in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, I have never known such a ease, and to my mind, if it happens at any colliery, I believe it is a breach of the Coal Mines Act and Regulations, and the necessary steps ought to be taken. I should never defend any slackening of the carrying out either of the Coal Mines Act or the Regulations connected with it. I thank the Mover for the graceful acknowledgment he gave that since 1872 the death-rate in our mines per thousand employed had decreased by considerably over a half. Is not that an evidence of progress? Legislation from 1872 to 1911 has im-
proved things. My own opinion is that you have gone as far as you possibly can by legislation now, and it must be obtained in other ways. I know there is a strong feeling that we are paying too dearly in human life for the wealth we produce. I share that feeling, and I should welcome any inquiry or any cooperation on the part of managers, trade union leaders and men working in the mines to come together and have a consultation and see if they cannot devise some means by which we can reduce this great toll of human life. I am sure it is impossible to procure any further improvement by amending such a complicated, difficult and great Act as the Coal Mines Act of 1911.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I am sure everyone on this side of the House will agree with the very kindly sentiment expressed by the hon. Member who has just sat down, but when he was speaking I was wondering whether he was speaking from his head or from his heart. Apparently his heart was running a little too fast, and carrying him away, making him go a bit further than he wanted to go, because he pulled up occasionally to tell us the things he was advocating could not be done.

Mr. HOUFTON: By legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM: By legislation, but they can be done by goodwill. We are having a spate of goodwill and have had for the last two years, but instead of conditions improving they are getting worse, and when the hon. Member quoted the hon. Member for Abertillery he only quoted one part of what he had said. It is true that if you compare the present time with 1872 there is a considerable apparent improvement, but the hon. Member for Abertillery drew attention to the fret that during the last 10 years there had b en no improvement. If there had been a continuous improvement, the probabilities are that we should have been satisfied with the 1911 Act. There is no continuance in the improvement, consequently we are asking the Government and hon. Members of all parties to agree with us that the Act should be amended so that the rate of progress which was in operation between 1872 and 10 or 11 years ago should be continued if at all possible. I am sorry this matter occupies so little of the mind,
or the time, or the attention of responsible members of the Government. The mining industry is the second largest industry in the country. It is probably the most important industry in the country. If we had been discussing a question relating to agriculture the benches opposite would have been full. So also would the benches here, because we are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to see the great industry of agriculture brought into a much greater state of perfection than it occupies now. The point I want to draw attention to is that every member of the Cabinet would have been sitting there if we had been dealing with agriculture, largely, perhaps, because the representative of the agricultural industry has a seat in the Cabinet. One of the things I want to put here, quite frankly, is that the miners are not going to rest satisfied with the subordinate position ocupied by the Mines Department. The mining industry is not only the second largest industry but, probably, the most important under present conditions, and it is, apart from the sailors' industry, the most dangerous occupation. It is more dangerous than the Army. In the Army, during a war, then are more officers killed than there are managers in coal mines. The managers are the officers of a coal mine, and they do not suffer except on very rare occasions. When there is an accident, it is very rarely that it affects the life or limb of the manager. If the manager were in danger of his life and limb he would he prepared to play the part of a man and defy the owners by carrying out the law. I want to say, quite frankly, that the managers in the collieries of this country at the present time dare not carry out the law. They dare not carry out the law because they are, just as the ordinary miner is, ordinary workmen, and if they are not prepared to carry out the instructions they get, there is another man get ting their job.
I suggest that the accidents could be reduced, and the easiest way to reduce them would be by holding the management responsible for the accident. The law puts the manager in the position of being able to tell the owner that he is independent of him if he cares to adopt that attitude, and the Government are entitled to be asked to put the onus for the accidents upon the managers. It it
does nothing else—and they are not much more than mere sycophants and slaves at the present time—it will put some soul into them. Accidents in mines should be made a criminal offence, unless the management can prove that they are due to causes over which they cannot exercise control. If that were done, there would be a very considerable reduction in the death rate and in the non-fatal accidents, because the accidents that take place are due largely to the negligence of the managers and their unwillingness, because of the instructions from the owners, to carry out the law.
What we are anxious to secure, so far as the Mines Act of 1911 is concerned, is that the Act should he strengthened so that the management will be held responsible, and that they will he threatened, not merely with the loss of then liberty but with the loss of their certificate.

Mr. MADDOCKS: It is the law at the present moment that the owner, agent and manager are responsible criminally if the mine is worked otherwise than in conformity with the Act. That is provided by Section 101 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911.

Mr. GRAHAM: I accept that statement as being perfectly true. What I was trying to put was that although the law is there it is not sufficiently strong, and. that the managers at the present time can ignore and do ignore the law. We shall be prepared on this side of the House, as representing the miners, to take the expert opinion of the advisers of the Mines Department whether they cannot show that these accidents, even under the present law, are preventible, and, if they are preventible, then those who are responsible for them should be regarded as having committed not merely a moral offence, but that they should be put into the dock and made to suffer in their person. The death rates and the accident. rates in the mines are caused by explosion, by falls of roof and side, by hauling accidents, by over-winding and by nystagmus. Probably the greatest and worst accident that the miner has to fact, is caused by had ventilation. There is a great deal more misery occasioned in the homes of the miners by the foul air that the miner is compelled to breathe than is known. There has never yet been any attempt to assess the suffering that is
occasioned by that particular form of accident, for which there is no redress, no compensation, and, possibly, no statistics. It is a very fruitful cause of illness and shortness of life in the miffing industry, and it could be prevented, if not entirely, at any rate, to a very considerable extent providing that there was that willingness which is talked about but never acted upon to carry out the safety regulations which are already in existence.
Some of us are getting a bit sick of sympathetic references to the miners' ease every time it is raised. That sympathy is manifested by the empty benches tonight. The last time, or almost the last time, that the mining question was being discussed, these benches were full, and they will be again before very long. Instead of getting good will, you are taking a line that will make it impossible for anything in the nature of good will to obtain in the mining industry. AS has been repeatedly said from this side of the House, the one thing that is of much advantage from our standpoint and not from yours is good will. Nobody is more anxious to secure good will than we are, but what of the good will that animates the men in control of the mining industry? The big proportion of the men who are engaged in that mining industry and who control it know nothing about it. They are merely capitalists, and because they are capitalists they are using their wealth in this form and that form to prevent a real knowledge of the actual facts existent in that great industry being made public and coming to the minds and consciences of the general public.
There are ways and means by which the accident rate in mines could be very considerably reduced, and the first thing that ought to be demanded by this Hence, and I suggest that Members on the other side are just as much entitled to ask for it as we are, is that the Mines Department should be elevated from its present subordinate position to that of Cabinet rank. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines will be favourable to that or not. I want to be frank with him. We do not think that a man who knows nothing of our industry should be Minister of Mines. It is essential that there should be some responsible office created whose business
it will be to see that the laws pawed by this Parliament are put into effect, and that the loss of life and accident rate are reduced to a minimum. I do not say that they can be abolished. I am not so foolish as to suggest that, but you can easily reduce your accident rate by 50 per cent. It will be well worth the while of the Government, and would from the economic point of view be sound procedure, to take steps not only to reduce the accident rate, but to increase the length of life in the mines and improve the capacity of the men, by providing that the ventilation regulations are carried into effect, thus, ensuring a very much larger output than you can get in existing circumstances. I hope that this discussion will have the effect of inducing the Government to consider the whole question from the standpoint urged from these benches, and be prepared to introduce legislations at an early date to amend the Act of 1911.

Mr. GOULD: Notwithstanding what was said by my hon. Friend who spoke last as to sympathy with the miners on this side, I can assure him that there, is a sincere desire on the part of all of us on this side to do all we can to support what hon. Members desire to obtain under this Resolution. One point which needs answering is as to the winding operations in collieries. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion almost made me get very ill when he described the horrors and uncertainties and dangers to which every miner is exposed as a result of the careless and indifferent manner in which the inspection of winding, machinery is carried out. But, taking the figures we find that in 1920 there were 40 accidents and that in the first nine months of 1921 there were 26, which would be at the rate of 85 or, if you like 49 for the year. There are between 800,000 and 900,009 men working underground, who have an average of 280 working shifts per annum, so that you have a total of 540,000,000 trips up and down, and you have got 40 accidents.

Mr. ROBERTSON: And they are 40 accidents too many, if they can be prevented.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. GOULD: Yes, I regret that we had 40 accidents, and if we can do away with them I should be very glad. But I am putting the point that the hon. Member who
seconded the Motion rather exaggerated the dangers of the case. I was rather surprised to hear the Mover of the Resolution contradict himself. He stated that the expenditure on the Mines Department which was authorised was £250,000 per annum, that the amount expended in the first year was £170,000, and that now we had to cut it down to £90,000, and the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) said that he could not understand how it was possible to have any economies made in that particular Department. If any lessening of accidents can be obtained by the maintenance or improvements of the Mines Department he said that we should not economise, but in the next breath he said, "What is the use of the Department? Why do you want it?"

Mr. BARKER: I never said that I did not want the Department maintained.

Mr. GOULD: The hon. Member criticised the cost of the Department, and then said he could not see the use of the Department.

Mr. BARKER: I never said such a thing.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is riot it within the recollection of the, House that the hon. Member was directing his remarks to the economies in the Department, which were reducing it below efficiency?

Mr. GOULD: That is not the point at all. In any event, it is not my desire to enter into a discussion in this House in a contentious spirit. Accidents, in any event, are deplorable. I want to call attention to the fact that the Ministry has recently set up a Mines Research Committee. The terms of reference are
to prepare a scheme for investigating possible methods of reducing the number of accidents in coal mines and consider arrangements for carrying out the proposed scheme.
The operations of this investigating Committee are not confined to any particular set of accidents. The scope is broad and extensive. The Committee can investigate every possible avenue which may lead to a solution of this most complex problem that ever confronted a set of engineers. Last year we were faced in the mining industry with 546 deaths. Of these, 359 occurred at the coal face. Naturally, that is an appalling number
of accidents. The total number of deaths from all causes was 1,100. Over half were due to falls. My hon. Friend must remember this. We have to look at the actual figures. We know that the numbers are deplorable and we want to reduce them by every means in our power and by every means of investigation which we can utilise, either as individuals or corporations or as a Government. But we have to realise that there is one fatal accident for every 400,000 working shifts.

Mr. HARTSHORN: How ninny non-fatal accidents?

Mr. GOULD: I will give all the figures that the hon. Gentleman requires. Let us go back, if we may, for a period of 50 years. It has been said that the percentage has decreased something like 50 per cent. The figure for the 10 years, 1873 to 1882 was 1.2. There is no use giving the intervening years because they show a steady decrease, but coming down to 1914 the figure was .70. In 1921 it was .42 and in 1020 .55.

Mr. G. A. SPENCER: Can you give us the figures for 1022?

Mr. GOULD: The figures are not yet published.

Mr. SPENCER: They would give you some useful information.

Mr. GOULD: Hon. Members said there was a desire on the part of coalowners to sacrifice safety for profits and output. If on no other ground than profit making it would be preposterous and silly on the part of mineowners to encourage accidents and loss of life for which they become liable to heavy penalties under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. There is another ground on which we are opposed and strongly determined to prevent accidents, and that is that we want to secure efficiency, to increase output by every means within our power, consistent with the least danger possible, in order that we may get what little of the surplus—if there is any that is left to us. I cannot discuss this subject in the present Debate. On broad humanitarian grounds, however, the Members opposite must not suppose they possess the whole of the milk of human kindness. There is some of it left on this side as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "And pretty well watered!"] It is better to be watered than mixed with something else. It is
very good tactics on the part of Members opposite, and it is an exceedingly good case for them to put to the country, to say that we as a body have no regard for human life, but treat the people with whom we have to work in our mines and businesses, as simply parts of a machine to be scrapped and broken at the earliest opportunity. But that is not the case. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham) referred to the fact that the miners were engaged in the most precarious industry, and he said something should he done to make the life of a miner more lengthy and more happy, and give him a better chance and a better lease of life. The latest figures issued by the Registrar-General's Department—and it is not my fault, it is the fault of the Government that the figures are not issued later than 1912—show that the miner is one of the longest living men in this country. The percentage of his life compares most favourably with those in other industries.
It is surprising to know that the average for miners is something like 230 per thousand of men over 75 years. The statement has also been made that mining is the most hazardous industry in the country. I have the official figures for accidents with me, which show that for seamen the percentage is 4.05 for 3,200 hours' work per annum. The miners 1.56 for 2,300 hours per annum. That is over a period of five years. For railwaymen the figure is 0.59. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that for deaths or accidents? "] It is for accidents. I took the trouble this afternoon to obtain quotations from one of the leading insurance companies in the country dealing with workmen's compensation. Their figures for miners are for South Wales and Monmouthshire, for all risks from 80s. to 130s. per cent. on wages, according to the nature of the coal, or an average of 105s. per cent. In England and Scotland they vary between 70s. and 110s. per cent., an average of 95s. per cent. I find that in other industries some of the figures are:—For those engaged with working machinery, 90s. per cent.: housebreakers, whatever that may be, 200s. per cent.; cleaners of outside buildings by mechanical process, 200s. per cent.; dismantling and breaking up machinery, 100s. per cent.; painters and decorators, 100s. per cent.

MARDY JONES: What is it for shipowners?

Mr. GOULD: The workhouse, in these days. The rate I have given is the rate per annum on each industry. That goes conclusively to prove—and the insurance committees are the best guides as to the nature of hazard and risk in employment —that the mining industry is not so hazardous as it is said to be by its protagonists. We must remember that many of the accidents are due to causes over which we have no control. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that circumstances should govern the law and not law govern circumstances.

Mr. H. PARKER: I said the opposite. Law should he supreme, and not circumstances.

Mr. GOULD: I agree, and I wish it could happen. If the law could rise supreme above circumstances, we would have no difficulties to settle in this House. Unfortunately, there are laws of Nature and other laws over which we have no-control, and no legislation that man can introduce will regulate them. The numbers of fatal accidents in 1913 were 1.59 per 1,000 employed; in 1920 they were .894: and in 1922 they were just 1 per cent. per thousand. There has been a steady decrease in the last nine years. It shows conclusively that the operation of the 1911 Act has had, in difficult times under war conditions, a very beneficial effect on the industry. Take the non-fatal accidents. In 1913 they were 156.8 per 1,000 employed. In 1920 they were 95.9 per 1,000. The number has decreased very considerably in the course of the last ten years. What the figures are for 1922 we do not know. I would like to make clear one point from which we cannot get away in dealing with the question of non-fatal accidents. During the War it was agreed, under the war addition to the Workmen's Compensation Act, that 75 per cent. increase should be given in the case of totally, but not permanently, injured people. The result has been that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of applicants for compensation for minor accidents who are also members of clubs. It has been said by someone that God Almighty cannot cure a man of a weak back when he is in three clubs. The number of cases per month has risen from 6,350 in January, 1921, to 12,231 in August, 1922.
and the duration of incapacity has increased correspondingly. The cases per 100,000 in the third quarter of 1922, compared with the percentage of cases per 100,000 in the first quarter of 1921, show that for less than two weeks the percentage of increase was 108 per cent.; for two and less than three weeks, 180 per cent.; for three and less than four weeks, 200 per cent.; for four and less than 13 weeks, 240 per cent.; for 13 and less than 26 weeks, 260 per cent.; and for 26 weeks and over it was 163 per cent. The sums paid increased over 3½ times per unit. Surely that, is sufficient to prove my contention that there is a deliberate intention on the part of the lower paid men to take advantage of the Workmen's Compensation Act in order to obtain addition al allowances.

Mr. HARTSHORN: It is a low-down suggestion.

Mr. GOULD: It may be, but there is the fact, and I cannot help it. According to the divisional inspectors alone there is no question about the fact that 50 per cent. of the accidents in 1921 could have been prevented by the observation of the Regulations and by reasonable precaution. On the 15 eases of fatal accident by explosion in 1920, nine were attributable, on investigation, to the acts of the men themselves. Take the case of Durham in regard to falls. I do not suppose there is any part of the country where a more straightforward and honourable attempt has been made to deal with these cases than in the County of Durham. Expert timbermen have been employed, specially trained for that particular job.

Mr. BATEY: Does that apply to all the pits in Durham?

Mr. GOULD: I do not say all the pits in Durham, but some of them. I must ask hon. Members to allow me to present my case. Hon. Members on the other side will never allow anybody on this side to make a case it all. As I was saying, every effort has been made in certain pits in Durham to improve the conditions, and what has been the result I A natural spirit of carelessness has been displayed on the part of the hewers.

Mr. BATEY: There is no such thing.

Mr. GOULD: The accidents show it. A natural spirit of carelessness entered into the men and undid the good work which the inspectors and managers were seeking to accomplish in this respect. There is not the slightest use, in a discussion of this kind, endeavouring to introduce controversial suggestions which imply that there is an entire lack of good faith and that the whole system of operations is wrong. That is only one way in which the mining industry and the Mines Department is being attacked. I assure the House, and I speak with a certain amount of authority, that notwithstanding differences in other directions which can only be settled by conference and discussion, on this particular point there is no difference between the mine owners and the men. Anything and everything that can be done to obviate accidents, to meet the men in any reasonable demands and to obey the dictum of the Department would be done willingly. As I said before, it will be done, if for no other reasons, for pecuniary reasons but you may take it from me, that the main ground of our desire to carry out every possible Regulation for the safety of the men, is that we desire on humanitarian grounds at least to be decent, reasonable, and Christian citizens. The capitalist is not necessarily a man without a soul. We may disagree on Some fundamentals, but when it comet, to the question of accidents, there are no reasonable suggestions from the Mines Department or the Home Office, which Will not be willingly accepted and obeyed, but we must have far more than good will in putting into operation any suggestions that are put forward. We must have absolute observance by the men of the rules which are made, and we are perfectly willing on the other hand, to see that any responsible official is submitted to the jurisdiction of the law, who fails in carrying but the obligations placed upon us by Act of Parliament. If hon. Members on the other side have any practical suggestions to make, let us have them. We are willing to do all we can, and we will consider them. If there are inventions; if there are new safety appliances available for the protection of life, if you can help us in any way to eradicate the difficulty of dealing with the human factor in handling machinery, we are willing to do our part. If you can find a way to overcome the difficulties for us, let us
know it. I appeal to the House to reject the Motion on the ground that we are doing all we can; we are satisfying the requirements of the Department and we believe that by carrying out the precepts of the 1911 Act and by observance of the conditions and Regulations laid down, you will achieve your object without amending that Act.

Mr. G. A. SPENCER: The time allotted to me is very short, but I should like to have the opportunity of combating one or two of the statements made by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould). He has asked that we should make one or two suggestions worthy of consideration that might be conducive, if not to eliminating, at least to lessening, the sufferings associated with work in the mines. I am going to tell him immediately that if he will take the trouble to look it up, I recommend him to read the Report of the Medical Research Council on Miner's Nystagmus. He will then come to the conclusion that the coalowners have been very remiss indeed in doing that which would have been sufficient to have prevented a great deal of the suffering which the miners of this country are unnecessarily enduring at the present time. Dr. Lister Llewellyn, who has written this Report himself, after many years of very careful investigation, has come to the conclusion that at least 25 per cent. of the men working in pits where safety lamps are used are suffering in some degree with miner's nystagmus, and Sir Josiah Court, who was one of the men who originally, long ago, investigated this awful disease, came to the conclusion that at least 34 per cent. of the men he examined were actually suffering from miner's nystagmus. This Report definitely says this that the essential factor in the production of miner's nystagmus is deficient illumination, and they go on to say, after making certain recommendations:
The Committee believe that by the application of these remedies miner's nystagmus of sufficient severity to cause disablement can by degrees he entirely prevented.
The only thing that is required to prevent this awful disease, to which a good many men working the mines are subject, is the introduction of an electric lamp of sufficient luminosity to give the men a reasonable light in which to perform
their tasks at the coal face. My hon. Friend has referred to accidents on the haulage roads. I suggest to him that he can halve the accidents on haulage roads, main haulage roads in particular, if he will whitewash those roads. These are two very simple things, and if the Secretary for Mines will give consideration to the suggestions which have been laid down here, and if we can induce him to bring in legislation which will make it imperative on the coalowners to provide, where lamps have to be used, a lamp of such standard of luminosity as will cut down nystagmus alone, we shall have contributed something very useful to this Debate to-night.

The SECRETARY of the MINES DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I think the whole House will agree in welcoming this Debate., and particularly the tone of the Debate. In spite of the caustic suggestion from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who, I see, is no longer in his place, that no sympathy can be expected from hon. Members behind me, I still venture to say that. I believe that, irrespective of parties or where they sit, the sentiment in the first part of this Motion will be received with the greatest sympathy and cordiality by all sections of the House. This subject of accidents forms one of the most important and certainly the most interesting parts of the work of my Department—looking after the health and safety of those who work in the mines. No one acquainted with mining would fail to appreciate the complexity of the problems that are involved, which are all intensely difficult problems. The House will realise that it is different from every other industry in many respects, and that in the mining industry there is not only the human and personal factor which is always liable to produce accidents; in addition, you have nature exaggerating every accident due to human frailty and adding those of her own creation to the list. Anybody considering the circumstances and the complexity of the problems involved in the machinery and a service of this kind and the problems which arise in respect of the roofs and sides of the mines, gas coaldust, fire, darkness, safety-lamps and so on, without realising how difficult is the whole thing. No one should ever say that the miner has a soft job, and those who are concerned
in the management of mines have a serious and an anxious responsibility.
It is the chief duty of the Mines Department to secure, so far as it best can, the safety and health of the miners and the improvement of the conditions in our mines. I must say I am grateful for the various allusions which have been made to the work of the Department. Hon. Members have been generous in their tributes. I only hope they have been accurate. I am sure they have been sincere about the efforts made by the Department, but they want the work to be increased. If the House of Commons would vote the enormous sums of money to increase the staff under my command nobody would be better pleased than myself. If, in addition, it was felt that the Secretary for Mines should be raised to Cabinet rank it would be gratifying, although such a rank should be conferred upon one more intimate with the intricacies of the subject. We live, however, in bad times when things are not easily done. When the Motion demands new legislation I should like to point out to my hon. Friends that first of all neither the Mover nor others who spoke have given any instance—I will explain what I mean shortly—in which legislation is necessary.
The Government have no intention of asking the House to oppose this Motion because we all feel that the first part of it is important, and that the House does regard accidents to life and limb in mines with feeling. We feel that the expression of this opinion is important; and that, obviously, no one will wish to object to it. The second part however, which asks for immediate legislation is unnecessary. Therefore, though not opposing this Resolution I want hon. Members to understand that there is no suggestion of the promotion of legislation in the immediate future partly owing to the congestion of Government business and also in view of the fact that it is really unnecessary. The reason for that is that there is not one single thing so far as I have been able to understand the suggestions made by hon. Members opposite that cannot be done at the present moment by regulation by the Secretary for Mines. Hon. Members will say, if that be so, that the fact that these things have not been carried out proves the inefficiency of the Department. If that be so, nobody will more than myself welcome what hon.
Members opposite may have to say. I for one shall be very glad to consult with them, as I have done, and have matters pointed out. I should like to point out to the House that under Section 86 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act there is ample power given to the Secretary of State in this matter. He may by Order make such general regulations for the conduct and guidance of those managing the mines or employed in or about the mines as may appear best calculated to provide for safety and health, and proper inspection for the care and treatment of the horses and other animals any such regulations as he may make may vary or amend any provision contained in Part II or Schedule III of the Act.
That is the part which deals with the question of safety, and therefore the Government contend that there is no need for further legislation. I would like now to deal with some of the criticisms which have been made. Again I wish to acknowledge the very pleasant tone in which the whole subject has been raised. Various subjects have been dealt with, and I was glad to note that the hon. Member who moved the. Motion admitted that, although there have been more accidents than we wish to see, still the general position showed an improvement. I would like to deal with some of the figures, and in doing so I would like to point out that although the toll of accidents is heavier than we wish to see, the general tendency has been to show that there has been a steady decrease. The first suggestion made was that of increasing the number of shafts and carrying out various other changes in the working of the mine. Although the cost of all these suggestions may not seem very much to those who are employed, in these days when under the agreement a certain definite proportion of the profits are assured to the men, it is a matter for them as well as the owners to consider whether any unnecessary expenditure shall take place. Therefore when you talk of sinking extra shafts you cannot do so very lightly, in view of the expense and its effect on wages.
As regards not looking properly after the ponies, that is a matter with which we sympathise, and only to-day I have sanctioned a prosecution for ill-treatment of ponies. I can assure hon. Members that this is a matter which is
being constantly and regularly watched. With regard to the treatment of horses and ponies, even one man can soon reduce a horse by neglect to a very bad state; all I can say on this point is that this is a matter which is being very carefully watched and upon which reports are being constantly sent in.
I was asked whether enough was being done to encourage inventions for ensuring greater safety. That is a matter with which the Safety in Mines Research Board is considering. I have been asked a question about a particular appliance for making shot-firing more safe. I would like to point to the report given to us in this respect by the Technical Appliances Committee, and though I am glad to think that this appliance is being successfully used in many collieries, we cannot be encouraged to make it compulsory when we get a report of this character from so high an authority. The danger of employing and making compulsory an appliance that is not really reliable is that you give a sense of false security. People begin to believe that other things can be neglected. That is all very well if the appliance is as good as it is supposed to be, but if it is not as good as it is supposed to be, it is far more mischievous than if you did not employ it at all. The report we have received says that "this appliance, with its very elaborate procedure in use, its unwieldy parts requiring delicate manipulation in use, and troublesome care in carrying, might and probably would introduce new and unforeseen sources of accident, despite the fact that adequate precautions of a much simpler nature and efficacious character are already provided by regulation.'' I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that with that report before us it is quite impossible to snake this particular appliance compulsory. I should be very glad to hear that it is being used and improved in other places.

Mr. BARKER: I shall give you some testimonials.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am sure the Technical Appliances Committee will be very glad to have any information the hon. Gentleman can give. The question of lamps and nystagmus has been referred to. I quite agree that the latter is a complaint that is increasing and is a
very serious matter. We have a Committee sitting on the subject, they have issued one report, and I hope will shortly issue another. With regard to the question of lamps, if anything can be done to produce a better lamp I am sure it will he welcomed and encouraged in every way by the Miners' Lamps Committee. But it is no good saying that you must have better illumination and better lamps unless you are also prepared to say that a, particular lamp giving better illumination is available that has not been made use of, and until some definite suggestion of that sort can be made I think I am justified in saying that every effort is being made to improve the lamps. Certainly, as far as dm Miners' Lamps Committee is concerned, it is a constant subject of study and investigation, and is one of the things on which the Research Board is employed.

Mr. G. A. SPENCER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Mr. Smith, giving evidence, stated that since he had introduced electric lamps at Nottingham nystagmus had decreased from 0.9 per cent. to 0.38 per cent., a reduction of 60.8 per cent. since the introduction of the electric lamp.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, I am quite well aware of the improvement, effected by the introduction of electric lamps, and I am glad to think they are being installed more and more in the collieries. That cannot be done in a minute, but I hope we shall have more and more. There, again, when you get a complete installation of electric lamps arises the question of protection against gas. That is one of the drawbacks. I quite agree that the introduction of electricity has enormously improved the illumination of mines, and I only hope that some brilliant genius will produce a lamp which will give us perfection and afford protection from gas as well as a good light.
The hon. Member complained that the inspection was insufficient, but that is a question of a larger staff, and is not really a matter for me to deal with; but when he complains that the results of inspection are not published. I cannot agree with him. You get far better results, and far more confidence on the part of the inspectors, if their reports are confidential. It is not that the Department has any desire not to act
upon the reports, but, if every inspector knew that every report he made was going to be published in every detail, I am certain it would cramp his style in a way that would be very undesirable. As regards the questions of firemen, and of the districts being too large, I know that in some cases there have been complaints which have been justified, and we have brought those cases before the last quarterly meeting of the divisional inspectors. As the House knows, we have regular quarterly meetings of the divisional inspectors, at which all subjects that have come up lately are discussed. There has never been any difficulty, where their attention has been drawn to such matters, in getting them put right; and, as long as that continues, I think we can say that the result has been comparatively successful.
As regards the question of the deputy being appointed by the workmen or by the State, I cannot agree with the hon. Member, in the interests of efficiency. Imagine, for instance, what would be the position of a man commanding a regiment or the captain of a ship, if all his responsibility, as regards the officers working under him, were taken away. You must make a man responsible for his job. If the responsibility of the man who has the management is taken away, and a lot of people are put in, I am perfectly certain—

Mr. ROBERTSON: The deputy does not carry out his duties under the Mines Act, but under the Coal Mines Act.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am well aware of that, but what the hon. Member said was that he feared, if the deputy were appointed by the management, he would be afraid to carry out his duties completely and successfully. I think that is not the fact. The hon. Member then asked about the Safety in Mines Research Board—whether it is still in existence, and what it is doing?

Mr. BARKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with the question of examination by workmen's inspection? They are entitled to have an examination once a month.

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, I will go into that. I shall be glad to have a talk with the hon. Member about it. With regard to the Safety in Mines
Research Board, the hon. Member asked what it was doing, and, I think, whether it is any use. I can assure him it is of the greatest use. The subject of falls of roofs and sides has been mentioned, and at this moment we have a Committee dealing with that very point. We are hoping that it will report shortly.
In addition to that, the work of the Safety in Mines Research Board is of a very varied and difficult character. They carry out the research into explosives, and they also deal with inventions and safety lamps. They deal with the running of the experimental station, which deals with coal dust experiments, and so on. Their pork is of enormous value, and I do not think it is fair to suggest that the Board are not doing most valuable work. They are working extremely hard, and have some very distinguished men upon the Board. The country as a whole should pay a debt of the deepest gratitude to those who are working so well on that Board.
I come now to the speech of the Seconder of the Motion, who dealt mainly with the question of winding engines. He alluded to certain very pleasant visits, so far as we were concerned, which he recently made to the Mines Department, when he also set out the case nearly as fully as he has to-night. The point which he raised of one man looking after two winding engines has been fully set out y him before me and my officials on several occasions. What we asked was, if this practice were continuing under conditions of any danger or serious danger? I do not believe in making unnecessary Regulations. I believe that when you make Regulations, you ought to make those that can be carried out, and you ought not to multiply them if you can possibly help it. The Regulations should be really good, and there should not be too many of them. We have asked hon. Members to give us cases, and up to the present time none have been put before us. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Harper Parker) says that he has a case now. He came to see me about a fortnight ago, and he could not produce it then, so that something has evidently happened since that date. I shall be extremely glad to go into it; anti if he will bring the case round to the Mines Department, he will be received with every sympathy and investigation will be made.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether his Department has insisted on putting on catches in case of the ropes of the cage breaking? There are a large number of patents existing. Will he say whether his Department gives, as a reason for not putting on the catches, that they would interfere with the winding of the cage?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: That is a question which has been several times gone into and considered. I am afraid I cannot be led away to deal with that now, as I have only a few minutes left. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into a very technical question of that kind. I want to point out that, on the whole, as has already been stated by several previous speakers, there has been a gradual decrease in the number of fatal accidents. I need not give the figures, which had been stated several times correctly. In serious non-fatal accidents there has been no increase, but, on the other hand, a slight decrease. It is only in the slightest accidents that, for the last year, 1922, there has been a comparatively considerable increase. It is, at any rate, satisfactory to know—and the House will remember the figures given by a previous speaker—that the great proportion of these accidents were slight. One wonders why it is, at this moment, when there has been a slight decrease in fatal accidents and a really noticeable decrease in serious accidents that there should have been an increase in the more slight accidents. I hope it may be that some of the work of the so-called Safety First Campaign, which the Mines Department has been trying to organise throughout the mining industry, is bearing fruit. I hope it may be that the men are beginning to realise that their health is worth thinking about, and that apparently trivial accidents and injuries are worth being treated properly and taken care of. We all know the extraordinarily high output there has been in the past year and the very high pressure at which the men have been working, and it is easy to understand that the proportion of slight accidents should have increased in the way it has. I do not think it is a sign of any increased carelessness on the part of the management or of administration, because that would have been reflected in the more serious and fatal accidents. I hope
we shall find that accidents are decreasing and the general conditions of health and safety in mines are improving daily. It is a testimony to the success of the scientific research and investigations which have been made that it is in the accidents in which Nature plays the most prominent part that the greatest decrease has occurred. I have not time to develop the figures but it is rather interesting that that should he so. That shows that the work of the Mines Department has been useful and has had good results.
It is an immense subject, and I should like to have pointed out how much higher we are than foreign countries in our level of safety. It. is a mistake for any hon. Members to think—I do riot believe they really think it—that we on this side are not as anxious to promote health and safety in the mines as they are. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire spoke very fiercely, but we know he is not as fierce as he pretends to be. The Government have no desire to oppose this Motion for the simple reason that no Government and no House of Commons—certainly not this House of Commons—would dream of opposing it. In all classes of society there is great admiration for the way the mining industry is carrying on its operations. There is great sympathy for the miner and his hard conditions, and there is great hope that very soon economic conditions will improve and things will be better than they are to-day.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in mines, and is of opinion that legislation to improve and strengthen the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, should be introduced and carried into law without delay in order to secure the fullest protection possible to those engaged in this dangerous industry.

Orders of the Day — NURSES' REGISTRATION ACT, 1919.

Major BARNETT: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that, the Scheme made under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Nurses' Registration Act. 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 94), for the election of sixteen persons to be members of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, and laid before Parliament on the 13th day
of February, may be modified as follows:—

Page 3, Table, by leaving out the first seven figures in the column headed "Number of persons to be elected," hi order to insert the figure "11."

Page 3, Table, by leaving out the first twenty-four lines in the column headed "Qualifications of persons to be elected," in order to insert the words" Registered nurses (i.e., nurses registered in the general part of the register)."

Page 3, by leaving out lines 31 to 42, inclusive.

Page 3, line 43, by leaving out the words "the first," in order to insert the word "any."

Page 3, line 45, by leaving out the word" that," in order to insert the word "such."

Page 3, line 46, by leaving out the words 24th" and "November," and by leaving out the figure "1922," and inserting in lieu thereof "19—."

Page 4, tine 2, by leaving out the words "1st" and "October."

Page 4, line 3, by leaving out the figure "1922."and inserting in lieu thereof "19—."

Page 4, line 41, by leaving out the words "of any class."

Page 4, line 42, by leaving out the words "of that class."

Page 4, line 46, by leaving out the words "of any class."

Page 5, line 10, by leaving out the word "seven," in order to insert the words "twenty-one."

Page 5, by leaving out lines 30 to 36, inclusive.

Page 5, lines 45 and 46, by leaving out the words "the votes cast in each of the five parts of the voting papers being kept distinct."

Page 5, by leaving out line 50.

Page 5, line 51, by leaving out the words "requisite number of."

Page 5, line 52, by leaving out all the words after "Returning Officer," to end of page.

Page 6, by leaving out line 1.

Page 6, line 2, by leaving out the words "who have the greatest number of votes.

"Page 6, line 27, by leaving out sub-section (2).

Page 7, Table, by leaving out the first seven figure; in the column headed "Number of persons to be elected," in order to insert the figure "11."

Page 7, Table, by leaving out the first twenty-four lines in the column headed "Qualifications of persons to be elected," in order to insert the words "Registered nurses (i.e., nurses registered in the general part of the register)."

Page 8, by leaving out lines 1 to 12 inclusive.

Page 8, line 13, by leaving out the words "the first," in order to insert the word "any,"

Page 8, line 15, by leaving out the word "that," in order to insert the word "such,"

Page 8, line 16, by leaving out the words "24th" and "November," and by leaving out the figure "1922," and inserting in lieu thereof "19—."

Page 8, line 18, by leaving out the words "1st October 1922," in order to insert the words "day of 19—."

Page 8, line 33, by leaving out the words "24th day of November 1922," in order to insert the words "day of 19—."

Page 8, line 39, by leaving out the words" 24th day of November 1922," in order to insert the words day of 19—."

Page 8, line 41, by leaving out the words "W. P. Herringham."

Page 8, line 43, by leaving out the words "November 3rd 1922," in order to insert the word "(Date)."

Page 9, line 20, by leaving out sub-section (4).

Page 10, Form D, Ballot Paper I, by leaving out the words "Two Past or Present Matrons of Metropolitan General Hospitals with Training Schools. (Two Candidates only to be voted for)," in order to insert the words "Eleven Registered Nurses."

Page 11, by leaving out page 11.

Page 12, by leaving out page 12 down to "The voter must put a mark thus x against the name or names of the candidates for whom she votes," and by leaving out after the said words the words from "The voter" to "paper," in line 12, inclusive.

Page 12, line 13, by leaving out the words "in any part of this ballot paper.

"Page 12, line. 22, by leaving out the word "8th."

Page 12, line 23, by leaving out the words "December 1922," in order to insert the word "19-."

Page 13, at end, by leaving out the words "8th" and "December," and by leaving out the figure "1922," and inserting in lien thereof "19—."

Page 14, at end, by leaving out the words "8th" and "December," and by leaving out the figure "1922," and inserting in lieu thereof "19—."

This scheme has to be submitted to the House in prescribed form. The curious thing is that the election has been held although the scheme has never been submitted to the House of Commons, and the reason is this that although the General Nursing Council has had three years in which to prepare its scheme and present it to the Minister of Health for his approval, it has allowed these three years to elapse. A considerable period was occupied last year by a strike on the part of a majority of the members of the General Nursing Council. We in this
House are accustomed to minorities, whether in the House or in Committee, going on strike temporarily, but I do not think there has been any previous case in which a large majority of a Council such as this have refused to function because they cannot get on with the minority. The result was that through no fault of the Minister of Health, the election had to take place without the scheme having been submitted to the two Houses of Parliament.

The notice on the Order Paper is a most portentous thing, but I am glad to say that there are only three Amendments of substance, and they are capable of being briefly explained. The first deals with the qualifications of the people who represent the registered nurses on the Council. I shall be within the recollection of the House, at any rate of those hon. Members who were Members of the House four years ago, when I say that in the debates on the question of nurses' registration two points received very great stress. One was, that nurses were to be raised to the status of a profession, and the second was that they were to he independent in the choice of their representatives. Again and again speakers pointed out the desirability of registered nurses being free to choose their own representatives without dictation from the matrons. I do not wish to say a word against the matrons as matrons. They are a very admirable body, and a very distinguished body of women. I do not want to disfranchise them, and I do not want to deprive them of the privilege of being elected members of the General Nursing Council, but I do want to point out to the House that this scheme, for which the approval of the House is asked, requires that six of eleven representatives of the registered nurses shall be past or present matrons. That is not in consonance with the wishes of the House of Commons. It is all very well to say that, these ladies shall be entitled to be elected if the nurses want to elect them. Of course they ought to be, and they have a very good chance of being elected. Any matron who knows her business, and has been a good matron, has a better chance of election to the Council than a registered nurse who has not had the same opportunity of advertisement. Why six out of eleven representatives of the registered nurses should be past or
present matrons I fail to see. There is nothing whatever to prevent the other five from being matrons of hospitals not having training schools. In other words under the scheme as it stands six of the representatives must be past or present matrons and the other five may be. The amendment I put forward is that the registered nurses should elect eleven nurses to represent them, and they may be matrons or not exactly as the nurses please. If the House adopts that suggestion it will be following a precedent set in Scotland.

The second point is the amount of time to be given for the voting papers to be sent out. Voting papers according to these rules have to be sent out seven days before polling day. That is far too short a period. I am suggesting 21 days. The returning officer found it necessary at the last election to extend the period to 14 days, though he had no authority from the, Minister of Health to do it. The only other Amendment of substance deals with the powers of the returning officer. A very remarkable Clause enables the returning officer, if he makes a mistake, to sit in judgment on his own case, and decide that the work was well done, and that the error or informality does not invalidate the election. There is no reason for giving this power to the returning officer, especially when he himself is the person whose mistakes are to be excused. Bad mistakes were made at the recent election. One was that the secrecy of the ballot was violated. Voting papers were sent out with a space for the nurse's registered number, and when I asked a question in the House of Commons the ballot papers were withdrawn and a new election was held at a cost of some hundreds of pounds. This is the last opportunity of bringing this scheme before the House. I realise the difficulties which my right hon. Friend must have in dealing with this matter, because he is fresh to his important office, and although he has tackled its difficulties with characteristic courage and ability it is rather hard on him to ask him to accept these Amendments en bloc and without consulting the General Nursing Council. On the other hand the Registered Nurses' Parliamentary Council does not want to see these Rules, which it considers thoroughly bad, made a precedent. I would like to have some assurance from my right hon. Friend as regards
the future.. I do not care about the past, for the Council has been elected for five years under these Rules, bad as they are. I do not want the revision of these Rules to wait for five years. If we can have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the General Nursing Council will have these Amendments, which I venture to think are reasonable, brought to their notice and that they will be asked within, say, six months, or at any rate within twelve months, to consider these Amendments and put forward their prescribed scheme for the next election, that, I think, would go a long way to meet an undoubted grievance.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion.
When this Measure for the registration of nurses was introduced, I always had my doubts about its efficiency, and apparently it has been a failure, but I have a hope of the present Minister of Health doing something better than his predecessor. The nurses must be protected. Their livelihood, their profession —and it is a noble profession—is at stake in this matter. People have been brought in to nurse the sick who have had no experience, and this has been to the detriment of those nurses who have been thrown out of employment. Amendment of the scheme is absolutely essential, and I hope the Minister of Health will do what he has been asked to do and have the new rules put into operation.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) recognises that I am placed in a somewhat difficult position in this matter. I have only been in office a few days, and it has been impossible for me to make such investigations into the ease the hon. and gallant. Member desires to present as would be necessary before I could accept the. Address on the Paper. In ordinary circumstances, I would have asked my hon. Friend to postpone the matter, and I am sure he would have done so in courtesy, but the difficulty is that this is the last of the 21 days allowed in which an Address may be presented to His Majesty, and, if my hon. friend withdraws his Resolution, unless he obtains some assurance from me, he is obliged to forego the right that is otherwise his.
That is a position I ought to meet. If the Motion be withdrawn to-night, I will undertake to request the General Nursing Council to consider the amendments of my hon. friend, and ask them to draw up and submit to me such alterations as they may be prepared to make within the next 12 months. These alterations to the scheme, if they are approved by me, wilt be laid on the Table of the House, and will be open to discussion. If make that offer in the hope that my hon. friend will accept it as a fair compromise in the circumstances.

Major BARNETT: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and for his endeavour to meet our case. With the leave of the House, I should like to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[CAPTAIN FITZROY in the Chair.]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

NUMBER OF AIR FORCES.

Postponed Proceeding Resumed on Question,
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 33,000, all ranks, be maintained for the service, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Lowe and abroad, exclusive of those nerving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 100 men.
I believe it is customary to allow a general discussion of policy on the Vote for the number of the Air Force. I wish to draw attention to what I consider to be a grave scandal in connection with the Air Force. The scandal I will describe in a moment or two, and in the meantime I wish to address one or two questions to the Secretary of State for Air. The Navy is, I think quite rightly, proceeding for strategical reasons to provide the port of Singapore with modern equipment for the Fleet. In the last session I inquired from their representative of the Air Service whether there was any provision for an air force for the defence of Singapore, and the reply was a
very astonishing one—that there was none whatever. I then remarked that I thought that was scandalous, and if the same reply is made to-day I shall venture to make the same remark again. It is perfectly scandalous. We can waste millions on the air defence of a perfectly useless Middle-Eastern Empire, which is no good to any one except certain profiteers who make money out of supplying armaments, and we can neglect the port of Singapore which, from the strategical point of view, is the most important in the whole world. As long as we maintain a navy at all, with the present distribution of power in the world Singapore must be of the mast vital importance. If the air defences of Singapore are neglected the defences of the place are not complete and very grave reflection lies on the Air Ministry. Singapore ought to be equipped with a modern air station for the defence of the port, for scouting purposes, for torpedo attack on hostile vessels, and so on.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has signalised his accession to his present high office by remedying this grave state of affairs, I shall congratulate him, and he deserves the thanks of the whole Empire.
The next question I wish to ask is, what provision is made in the Air Service for giving preferential treatment to the sons of ex-officers, and serving officers who wish to train for commissions through the cadet schools. The Navy makes special provision, and I believe the Army also, for entrants of this class. If the Air Force does not do so, it ought to do so. At the same time, I wish to know if facilities are afforded for young men of good education and character to enter through the cadet schools, and if they are not debarred from the career of an air officer by lack of means. I notice in the appropriations-in-aid on this Vote, a sum of £6,000 for cadet fees as against £5,000 last year. Does that mean that only people who can afford the fees are entitled to enter or are we to understand that boys, in every other way fitted to be air officers, are not debarred by the poverty of their parents from embarking on this career? We are supposed to be living in a democrafic age and wealth should be no advantage where ability is non-existent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am glad that sentiment appeals to hon. Members oppo-
site, and I trust if a satisfactory reply is not forthcoming, they will support me in what is, I hope, a praiseworthy effort to democratise the Air Service.
It is very necesary the Air Service should not be officered by only one class, and that the wealthy class, in view of the temptation to use the Air Force against the civil population in times of trouble or commotion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members cheer that sentiment and agree with me that the danger of the misuse of the Air Service, by any class in the country, should be amply safeguarded against. The highly-coloured advertisements appealing for recruits for the Air Force, which adorned the walls of our cities, included a picture showing the ladder of promotion, from the lad entering, up to the flying sergeant, but it did not go beyond that. I wish to know if provision is made for promotion from the ranks and if the avenue is broad and easy for men of ability to advance to the highest ranks in the service? I do not pretend to any special knowledge of the Air Service, but I do know that the struggle in the sister Service—the Navy—to open the commissioned ranks to all men in the Service, was a very long one, and is not yet fought to a finish. The Air Service is new, and ought not to be hampered by certain obsolete traditions, as are the older Services; there is not the same excuse for placing any obstacle in the way of men rising by sheer merit and ability to the highest positions.
Now I come to the scandal hon. Members are anxious to hear about, and I take this opportunity of referring to a subject which has happily been referred to before in this House, and that is the use of the Air Force against native villages in tribal warfare, particularly on the North West frontier of India. I do not suggest that in tribal warfare the Air Force should not be used to the fullest extent possible compatible with civilized notions of warfare. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are they?"] They are that we should confine our attacks to the armed forces of the enemy and not attack women and children, nor, which I think is also a very scandalous thing, the dumb cattle. I do not think it is a very chivalrous thing to punish tribes, either in Mesopotamia or on the North West frontier of India, by bombing their herds
of cattle. It is not a thing that we can be proud of as a nation. It is a very mean way of punishing people, but please do not let it be understood that I am suggesting that the Air Force should not be used when, by its humane and proper use, the lives of our men can be saved. War is always a terrible thing, and I hope that if it has got to be waged I shall not be accused of squeamishness. My great complaint in the last. War, as regards one branch at least, was that we were much too tender.
In this matter the House of Commons has a very special responsibility. These tribes on the North West frontier of India and in Mesopotamia, and some little time ago, in the time of the last Parliament, in Egypt, cannot really defend themselves. They are not represented in the League of Nations, they have no diplomatic representatives in this country, and therefore it is doubly incumbent upon us to see that our actions towards them are actuated by principles of humanity and chivalry, and I would like assurances on that point. The newspaper reading during the Recess of tie operations in Waziristan and on the frontier of North West India was unhappy reading. There was a gloating account of raids on native villages that would have done credit to the official communiqués of the great General Staff of Germany during the War.

Captain TERRELL: Have you read them in the Moscow papers?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, I read them in an English paper which contained an official communiqué from the Government of India describing the successful bombing of these villages and attacks on the cattle of the tribesmen. I wish to have an answer to these questions, which were raised at the beginning of this Parliament., when the hon. Gentleman made the perfectly justifiable reply that he was making full inquiries. Now I take it that he has the full information, and I wish to ask him, in these cases of reprisal raids on these villages, is any warning given, so that the inhabitants, the aged, the women, and the children, can be removed? If not, I think it is scandalous. It is just as heinous to destroy by air-raids Arab women and children as to destroy the worm n and children of Edinburgh or
London, which we resented so much during the war.
Secondly, is this bombing of cattle, camels, and horses really necessary? The Secretary for Mines, who was addressing the house on the previous Vote, spoke of his great love of horses, in answering certain questions about the treatment of pit ponies. Quite rightly, we prosecute people in this country who ill-treat horses. Ts it really necessary in the interests of this Empire that we should visit the sins of the North-West Frontier tribesmen on their cattle anal horses? The aeroplane as a weapon is very liable to misuse, and it should he used with the greatest care in these places, otherwise we shall only stir up hatred against ourselves.

Mr. HARRISON: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air in his opening remarks referred to the Army and Navy Estimates as well as to his own. And, indeed, as these three great branches of our defence are indissolubly intertwined, the Army Estimates have been prepared with a fine appreciation of the financial situation and with great courage. As regards the Navy, the other day I offered a few friendly criticisms which, I think, were not received in the spirit in which they were offered. I was referred by the First Lord to a memorandum which l had read, but did not attach the importance to it as its author does. The Geddes Committee, when the figures of the Air Estimates were £15,000,000, suggested that they should be reduced to £10,000,000. They are now £18,500,000. So by a parity of reasoning the Geddes Committee was right or the Estimates are too high by about. 8½ millions. To return, however, to the details in the Report. There was mention made of 32½ squadrons. The Geddes Committee suggested that they should be reduced by nine, which would mean a saving of £2,500,000, but the present proposal is to increase them by 15, of which, I think, five or seven of that increase is to take place in the present year. We all know that the Air Service is one of the most important, and maybe the most important, of our defences. Still, we ought to consider very carefully whether we are justified in an expenditure of 8½ millions more than was thought proper by that Committee. To turn to another detail, the num-
ber of machines at the present time was stated to be 1,954. That was on an Estimate that was supposed amply to allow for all reserves—everything in fact that the Air Ministry thought possible and desirable. In addition to that 1,954 there was actually in existence 1,924, so at that time, 1922, the supply was enormous. I believe the intention is to add 575. No doubt these machines will very rapidly get obsolescent, yet the action taken would appear to be necessary to replenish our reserves. Again, take Mesopotamia. The figures are disguised in the Estimates, because the expenditure on Mesopotamia is classified Appropriation-in-Aid, but apparently if we quit Mesopotamia we should save another five millions. Under these circumstances, I think it would be well if the. Government could see, their way to reduce the Estimates.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: The Secretary of State for Air made a speech this afternoon which I listened to with great care and interest, and to me it was a splendid example of the adage that armaments depend on policy. The right hon. gentleman begun by saying that nothing he intended to say ought to be considered in the slightest degree as meaning hostility towards our great Allies in the late war. Nevertheless, the whole burden of his speech in regard to this expenditure was directed to our defence against what nation? It was not Russia, Germany, or the Balkan States. Every hon. Member present knows perfectly well why we are being asked to spend so much money on aerial defence or preparation for it four years after the War that was to end war. Our armaments depend upon our foreign policy and if our present relations with foreign Powers develop in an adverse way and become hostile, the Air Minister will probably be compelled to come here again with Estimates asking for money to a very much greater extent in the near future, and we on these Benches would regard that as a very great disaster.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee rather to the financial side of the proposals which have been laid before the Committee by the Secretary of State for Air. For example, it is proposed to spend £205,000 upon subsidies to civil air transport companies, but I gather from the memorandum which has
been issued that certain changes are contemplated. That Memorandum says
There is every reason to anticipate that from now onwards the orders placed by the Air Ministry in the ordinary course, under a strict estimate of requirements, will be sufficient to maintain an adequate number of firms on a sound and stable basis.
I regret to see money being voted to maintain private firms on a sound and stable basis. There are other indications which go to show what is in the mind of the Government regarding future expenditure upon civil aviation. The memorandum to which I have referred further states:
The nature and extent of the assistance to be rendered by the State in the future to civil aviation is receiving close attention and the fact that that merely embodies the status quo must not be taken as implying that it represents the final policy of the country.
There is, however, another document. The Secretary of State for Air referred at some length this afternoon on Government financial assistance to civil air transport companies, and he told us that we were spending £200,000 per annum upon subsidising four aerial transport companies, and all he seems to have got for this expenditure is 18 pilots and 20 machines. Precisely what some of us on this side of the House said a year ago outside this House would happen, the right hon. Gentleman admits to be the case, because he has stated that that £200,000 subsidy which was originally intended to stimulate aerial development and encourage competition amongst the competing firms to devise new types has only resulted in these four companies eating up public money to the extent of £200,000, and the Government is engaged now in competing against itself. The right hon. Gentleman has now seen the folly of that proposition, and the Report of the Committee on Government Financial assistance to Civil Air Transport Companies makes it perfectly clear that the gentlemen who sat upon that Committee understand exactly what has taken place, because the Committee in paragraph after paragraph advise the Air Ministry and the Government to adopt a new financial subsidy policy.
In paragraph 25 on page 12 the Committee say:
Although we cannot agree that serious progress has been made towards the Services becoming self-supporting we do not desire to create the impression that the subsidising
of the air transport companies has been of no value.
They are not enthusiastic, to put it mildly, about what has happened to the £200,000 that has been poured out. In paragraph 27, they say:
After the expiration of nearly two-thirds of the total period of three years, commercial civil aviation has, in fact made little progress towards being able to fly by itself without financial assistance from the Government";
and on page 29:
We have … heard evidence from representatives of the Federation of British Industries and of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce ";
and then,
even at the cost of considerable subsidies from the Government, notwithstanding their strong views and the need for national economy
these gentlemen propose that £1,000,000 of public money should be given over by way of subsidy, not to the four firms who have sunk their private capital—to what extent I do not know—plus the Government subsidy, in developing aerial transport, but to a new company, unspecified, undefined; and the only condition attachable to it, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly was that they in turn should be able to raise,£1,000 though I think the Report says only half of it need be called up. This private group is to raise £1,000,000, the Government is to hand over, another £1,000.000, and the shareholders in the private company—the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate it this afternoon—are to get 10 per tent. on their capital, while the Government is to get no interest on its capital, and is only to get a return of its £1,000,000, or any portion of it, after the 10 per cent. has been paid to the shareholders in the exploiting company. That, I think, is an extraordinary position to put before the House of Commons. Despite the urgent need for economy, £1,000,000 of public money is handed over to a nameless, unspecified group of financial exploiters, who are to get 10 per cent. on their capital, while the Government is to get no 10 per cent. on its capital. If we get back our £1,000,000 —if—we are to get it back without interest; and, most precious jewel of all, after the Government has got its £1,000,000 back, all the apparatus and the outfit of the company, floated and strengthened by Government money, is to
become the solo property of the private shareholders in the company. I know nothing whatever about the shareholders in the four companies who have already been engaged in this work of civil aviation, beyond what I have read in the public Press, but I am told that the shareholders in these companies have pretty well lost their money, and I should dearly like to know why it is, if a private company is to be subsidised for aerial transport and given command of the aerial way, to carry our mails and our passengers, why is it that those who have already had experience of the work and have been associated with the Government, who have sunk and lost their capital, are not invited to co-operate with the Government in this new venture? For my part, I want no private company in it at all. You do not hand over the British Navy to a private exploiting company.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Because this is civil aviation. You trust the Mercantile Marine.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Gentleman had read the Deport, he would have seen that the whole purpose for which this proposed company is formed, and for which the Government is going to subsidise it, is because the Government wish to have, to its hand, in times of national need, an adequate supply of air pilots. They also wish that our mails and our communications with the outer world should he adequately developed against the aerial transport which is being subsidised by foreign Governments. The whole burden of the Air Minister's speech this afternoon was that the French Government was giving subsidies amounting to an enormous sum of money and that therefore we must do the same. Why do we hand over this essential arm, essential from the military point of view—

Sir H. BRITTAIN: No.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is essential if the Chambers of Commerce of London, Leeds, Liverpool and the Federation of British Industries are appealing to the Government to develop it in the interests of the trade, commerce and prosperity of the country. Why should the Government hand over that which is essential to the prosperity of the country to a private
exploiting company, which will get, ex hypothesi, £50,000 a year as a picking out of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Surely they are to get 10 per cent. on the £500,000 they put in. That is, £50,000 per annum, which they will get—an additional tariff on our aerial transport.

An HON. MEMBER: They may lose the lot.

Mr. JOHNSTON: They may lose the lot! The British Government is putting in money to back it up. They will become shareholders, and co-directors, although they will be in a minority, and the private exploiting members will be in the majority. That is a bait thrown out to induce the Finance Market to come in and take 10 per cent.—a fine gilt-edged investment.

Captain TERRELL: Have they paid dividends?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not know whether they have yet.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Where is your gilt-edged security?

Mr. JOHNSTON: They are away with £1,000,000 of your money, and they are putting in £500,000. I know nothing safer than that. What are the, qualifications of this group of financiers? Are they to be air pilots and to know anything about civil aviation at all? Are they to be the courageous men who go up into the clouds and risk their lives? Not at all. They are going to be the usurers, the men who bleed every national industry; the men who were responsible for the fact that to-day you are paying £375,000 a year too much for your telegraphs. You handed over your telegraphs to a private trust and after many years the telegraph companies sold out to the Government..

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Telephones.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am talking about telegraphs, and there is a fundamental difference in the part of the country I come from, between telegraphs and telephones. You are paying £375,000 too much because you handed over your telegraphs to a private trust which sold out to you watered stock which was not there and who wee bleeding and will bleed you for years, and then your private enterprise Press turns round and says, "Look at the failure of State enterprise." Look at the
plunder of private enterprise while there is yet an opportunity before they have their clutches on your airways, before they strangle your commerce and trade. I beg the Minister not to listen to these proposals. When you run aerial transport as you run the British Navy, run it not for an exploiting trust, but for the good and the well-being of the British people. The Committee say on page 41 they will not recommend the creation of a Corporation or company administered under Government control but a commercial organisation run entirely on business lines with a privileged position with regard to an air transport subsidy. They see the £1,000,000. They are like Sir John Falstaff, who said on one occasion, "He that will caper with me for a thousand marks let him lend me the money and have at him." Here they are. They are to have the money free of interest. They will take the 10 per cent.

Captain TERRELL: Gilt-edged.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope I am not trampling on the right hon. Gentleman's toes.

Captain TERRELL: I am neither right hon. nor have T any shares in this concern.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I shall be glad to listen to any defence which either of the two hon. Members can put up to this exploitation of the public purse to the tune of £1,000,000. I will listen in peace and quietness, and will not interrupt them.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: You always do.

12 M.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not interrupt. They say they want a privileged position in regard to the air transport subsidies. They want £1,000,000 they want the 10 per cent. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright this afternoon, he was in favour of negotiating with some private finance trust on a basis such as has been proposed in this Committee's Report. A week or so ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it advisable that he should have appointed the three particular gentlemen he did to act upon this Committee. He rather took it that that important question was a reflection upon the business capacity or integrity of the three Members of the Committee.
Not at all. Those three Members, for aught I know to the contrary, may be the finest business men in London. They may be the greatest financiers in London. Possibly it was because they are great financiers that they made these proposals. They are typically usurious proposals. The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman is not directed against the business acumen or ability of these three Gentlemen; but I asked if he thought it was advisable that, holding the family relationship that one of them did to himself, the business relationship that another had to him, and the business relationship that the remaining one had to a member of his family—the three of them all closely connected in a business way—if he thought, it was advisable that these should be the three gentlemen he should have appointed, particularly in view of the fact that the Committee comes forward with a proposal for £1,000,000 subsidy and that the private trust who are to be the fortunate recipients of the million are to get 10 per cent. For my part. I trust that the Government will retain civil aviation in their own hands, that they will run air transport for the benefit and the well being of the British people, and that private finance, private plunder, and private capital will not he allowed to put its finger in this pie as it has put its finger in telegraphs and telephones.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I should like to bring the Committee back from the speech we have just heard to the few facts and figures given by my hon. friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Harrison) in the speech he made just beforehand. The point he brought before the House was that the Estimates for the Army and the Navy have been reduced, and that the one service which has increased its Estimates is the Air Service. My hon. Friend was telling me this afternoon that the Air Service Estimates, instead of being £18,000,000, should be about £30,000,000, and that the Navy ought to have reduced their Estimates to the same amount. There is a quarrel between the experts, one side suggesting that the real defence of this country is in the air and that we ought to economise on the Navy and the Army and concentrate on the Air Force. If it can be proved that the Air Force is the real defence of this country, I can understand our economising on the one service
and spending the money on the other. But until it is proved that there is an argument for increasing this year's Estimate for the Air Force, at a time like this, when we know that estimates are being pruned in every other direction, I cannot understand why the Air Estimates are going up instead of being cut down still further. A large amount of this money is being devoted to Mesopotamia.
The right hon. Gentleman says that in Mesopotamia the Air Force has a separate command, which is a rather unique thing in the history of the force. I hope that the influence of the right hon. Gentleman with the Cabinet is not used to prolong our stay in Mesopotamia, in order that this costly experiment may be carried out to show that the Air Force is capable of a separate command. In Mesopotamia itself we have not only air squadrons, but also battalions with machine guns and so on, practically a miniature army, under the Air Ministry. I understand that an air squadron is practically as expensive to keep up as a battalion of infantry. We have not today received sufficient explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to why these Estimates should go up. I notice that he suggests that it is because war stores have run out and new stores had to be bought. If that is so we are to presume that next year the Air Estimates are to go up further, and so far as I can see there will be no limit eventually to our Air Estimates. Before we go further we should have some competent Committee to go into the whole question of defence and the opinions of the various experts. One says that the Air Force should be increased, another the Army, and another the Navy, and we should know where the money ought to be spent. I think that a sum of money ought to be set aside for the defence of this country and apportioned between the three Services in a proper ratio. I would like a further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of the increase, and a statement as to whether such a Committee is going to be appointed.

Sir S. HOARE: I am grateful for, on the whole, the very kind reception which has been given to the Air Estimates. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) made a very interesting speech which seemed to me to contain
very little serious criticism of the Air Estimates. He referred to the importance of civil aviation. I agree entirely with him. I hope that he has not gathered from my speech the impression that I think that civil aviation is of inferior importance. Not only do I not think so, but I do not think that civil and military aviation are contradictory policies. With practically every word of his speech I am in agreement. There was a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes), and there again I do not think there was any thing with which I found myself in disagreement. He quoted the case of chaplains. We try to make use of any chaplain who is available. If there is a small detachment of the Air Force at any particular station, if we can we make use of the services of the local clergyman or the minister of any other denomination; or if there is an Army chaplain available we make use of him.
We try to carry out the principle the hon. and gallant. Member for Hallam inculcated. At present there is an inquiry going on. That inquiry will be continued by the Committee of National Defence almost at once to see whether this co-operation cannot be carried a step further still. The hon. and gallant Member asked me one or two questions about the percentage of the flying personnel of the Force and the officers generally. At present. there are 3,288 officers for the total establishment of the Royal Air Force. Of these, 1,579 are actually engaged in flying the machines in commission, and 2,599 are liable to fly. The others are either older officers, past the age for flying, or officers like stores officers and other technical officers. I agree entirely with the suggestion the hon. and gallant Member made, that as many officers as possible should fly, and that they should fly for as many hours as possible in the course of the year.

Captain W. BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any figures as to the mileage flown by military machines in any suitable period?

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I cannot do so offhand, but I shall be delighted to obtain the information as far as it is available for the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Member
asked me about the hours during which officers had flown. I will see if I can get that information for him.
Then there were the two speeches made by the two hon. Members on the other side of the House in moving and seconding the Amendment before 8.15. I do not think I find myself in any serious disagreement with the Mover of the Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment seemed to think that I did not attach sufficient importance to the potentialities of civil aviation or research in civil aviation. If that was the impression which the hon. Member got, he must have misinterpreted what I said, or I must have expressed myself badly. That is not at all the case. Two very interesting speeches were made upon each side of the annual controversy between the Air Ministry arid the Admiralty by my hon. friends the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and the Member for South Battersea (Viscaunt Curzon). I do not think the House will expect me, standing where I do, to enter into a battle with my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this subject, all the more so, because of the fact that we hope the question is going to be settled through an impartial inquiry by the Committee of Imperial Defence. A series of questions was addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I may tell the hon. and gallant Member that we have missed his questions very much during the last few weeks. He was kind enough to tell me that if I could give a satisfactory answer to one or two of them, I should deserve his congratulations. I am very glad to think that at any rate upon his first question, I can give him a satisfactory answer, and presumably I shall deserve his congratulations. As to Singapore I can assure him due provision is being made for the Air Service in the provision for the strengthening of the Force.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: There is nothing in the Votes upon it.

Sir S. HOARE: I will tell the hon. Member why. That part of the expenditure does not take effect this year, but will come into the Estimates for next year as far as I can remember. At any rate in the near future it will come into the Estimates. He also asked me about the facilities given to the sons of Air Force officers and officers who have
been in the Air Force. There again, think I deserve his congratulations, for the system is exactly the same as in the Navy and Army. As to his further questions, whether a poor man has a good chance of entering the Air Force and getting on in it, I think I can reassure him. The cost of cadet training at Cranwell is kept as low as possible and special terms are given to needy cases. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need be at all anxious upon that point. Then there was what he was bold enough to call a scandal, with which he charged my administration—the fact that we have been so wicked sometimes as to bomb cattle in different parts of the Empire. Obviously, one does not wish to throw bombs upon human beings or upon cattle, but at the same time if the hon. and gallant Member will look impartially at what has happened on the North-West frontier of India and Iraq, I am certain he will come to the conclusion that the air operations have been most carefully directed, that the casualties on either side have been reduced to a minimum and that really the operations are much more humane than any ground operations by military expeditions could have been.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I repeat my question. Is warning given to these villages before they are bombed, so that non-combatants can be removed?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member asked me so many questions, that I forgot that particular one. Yes, I can assure him that it is. Then questions were asked me by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. F. C. Harrison). I hope if he will look at what I said this afternoon, he will see that I tried to give the reason why the Air Estimates are being increased. The increase is almost entirely due to two things. First there are the 15 extra squadrons for home defence and the three extra squadrons for naval work. Then there is the fact alluded to by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth), that owing to the exhaustion of war supplies we now have to give new orders. Lastly, there was the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston). He made a very determined attack upon the system of subsidies. As
I told the House, I dislike subsidies too, but with civil aviation as it is now, I cannot myself see how it can be kept alive, unless subsidies are given, at any rate for some further period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not take it over?"] Hon. Members ask why not take it over? That was the question which underlay most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan. I will tell the House why. I do not want to take it over. Civil aviation is a very risky business, and I would much rather that private investors lost their money in it than the State. That is the whole history of it. Let me reassure the hon. Member that, as far as I know we are doing no injustice to existing shareholders. In fact I do not know who the shareholders are in the two or three existing companies. In any case, we wish to treat them perfectly fairly, and in any arrangement made we wish them to have a fair chance, and if they can subscribe to the conditions, an outline of which I gave to the House this afternoon, we shall be very happy to avail ourselves of the work they have undoubtedly done.
I hope I have dealt shortly, at any rate, with the questions which have been asked me. As the Air Estimates will come up next week on Report stage, there will be an opportunity of asking further questions upon these points, and I would ask the Committee now to let me get this Vote.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The least I can do after the remarks of the right hon. and gallant gentleman is to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,508,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,799,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

QUARTERING, STORES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, AND TRANSPORT.

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £1,351,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDEING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,870,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

Captain W. BENN: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether this is one of the Votes the Prime Minister said this afternoon would be taken. I thought there were to be four, but this seems to be the fifth Question that you, Captain FitzRoy, have put from the Chair.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The first Vote put was Vote A. Then come Votes 1, 4, 2 and 3.

Captain BENN: Then this is the last? It is included in those mentioned by the Prime Minister?

Colonel WILSON: It is.

Captain BENN: Very well.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes after Twelve o' Clock.